politics

Panetta urges calm, but says U.S. takes no sides in Japan-China dispute

120 Comments
By Dan De Luce

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

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

120 Comments
Login to comment

But he said the United States as a matter of policy does not take a position on the territorial dispute.

And thus the qualifier. The US is afraid that this thing will blow up and it will have no choice but to get involved. At the same time, US corporations don't want anyone to antagonize China to adversely affect it sizable business interests there. Japan is caught in the middle of a much larger issue.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

the plot thickens... depending on how the internal politics work out in china, this could blow out to the full scale war. chinese military might get the wrong idea from this new revelation by the US. but even the knuckleheads in the Chinese military should know that the US presidential election is just around the corner. so they will wait for now, while keeping the mobs on the streets. it would also give the Chinese ample time to plot something like the Mukden incident of 1931, only this time, japan would be on the receiving end. oh, the irony...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What was a purpose of Japan/US Peace Treaty then? Has US been fooling Japan over 60 years? Is US a liar?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

What ever happened to the 安保条約?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"takes no sides in Japan-China dispute" is NOT equal to "takes no sides in Japan-China conflict"

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It’s definitely good move from the US for pushing all sides to solve the problem. And of course, neither CN nor JP is sided by the US. Only Taiwan, ROC, was actual ally of the US since WW2. lol~

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Is US going to be the umpire of ship bumping game?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I wonder if how this will affect Japanese investments and companies in the coming years.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"no nuclear-capable country has been subjected to aggression or occupied, or had its borders redrawn"

the US waffles on their commitment to defending japan's claim to the senkaku under the mutual defense treaty, even though they returned them to japan in the first place.

and that is why japan needs to do a scientific test a thermo-nuclear device, its not in violation of non-proliferation. its a scientific experiment, kinda like scientific whaling! :D

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Funny, we're there posters the other day going on about how the US would take Japan's side? The US wants nothing to do with this at all - and I don't blame them! "Mom! He took my toy!" "Mooooooom! He looked at me wrong!"

Both countries need to grow up. I'm getting sick of this constantly being on the news - though I am SURE the government is loving it as it takes heat of their okaying to build new nuke reactors, ignore the issues in Fukushima, ignore the economy issues....

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Honestly I don't support military war AT ALL! War is BAD. But I guess China can hurt Japan's economically. I've read that economists agree that Japan rely more on Chinese's market than the other way around. But honestly I wish there'd be a peaceful ending to all these.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

A Peace Treaty ended WWII; the US -Japan defense treaty would applicable IF Japan should actually need help. That isn't going to come about. Everyone knows that neither govt will let this escalate to anything truly bellicose. Military questions aside the economic cost to all concerned would be catastrophic.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

i'm sorry i don't see how japan is acting childish. any violence in japan? no. any protests in japan? no.

of course the chinese government is walking a very fine line. they need the nationalist protest to paper over the their collapsing economy and official corruption. but the protest violence actually hurts other chinese workers and investors, not japanese. japan should be pointing this out and the fact that they have given china billions in loans and foreign aid and that it hasn't made it down to the people cause of the official corruption, but they aren't.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

i'm sorry i don't see how japan is acting childish. any violence in japan? no. any protests in japan? no.

Buying the islands just when the disputes were erupting... nice.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Not taking sides? Didn`t they just sign a missile agreement???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Heritage foundation, a thinktaank of US hawks provided the platform for Ishihara Shintaro deliver his annoucement of buying the isles, how can you say US taking no sides? It was shameless! Nobody should trust the US government anymore and no cooperation for regional security anymore! Dirty tricks is in!

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

JT's two headlines today: "Panetta urges calm, but says U.S. takes no sides in Japan-China dispute" & "U.S., Japan agree on new missile defense system". You got to laugh at the rhetoric...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

but his schedule originally did not include a stop in Tokyo. The row over the islands likely prompted the change in his itinerary, analysts said.

Ossan, told ya the yanks were getting ticked off with Japan! Man wud love to hear some of the words spoken.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Like Poland, Czech in europe has stationed with US radar or missile silos that falls within Russian missile striking distance, the SBX will triggar retaliation from Russia and especially China in asia! And Japan is risking herself further between the cross fire of super powers! Sure America shall never care whatsoever of the consequences but her own stragetic benefits! This is her definition of taking no sides!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Thomas

Buying the islands just when the disputes were erupting... nice.

It was either buy the islands or let Ishihara and his goons do so. If the government hadn't stepped in and bought them, things would be a lot worse now than they actually are.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Its funny right under this, there is the article on US and Japan agree on missile defense system.. DUH, I am a poor country boy, but doesnt this seem that the US is leaning on someones fence? LOL

2 ( +2 / -0 )

and with all the US bases here in Japan, if China did anything in a way to strike Japan, wouldnt the US bases be the prime targets?? DUH.. You think China would leave the US Bases alone and only hit Japanese Bases,, When I was at Yokosuka, the Japanese had a base about 3 minutes walk away, think anything hitting that place would not effect Yoko?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

i'm sorry i don't see how japan is acting childish. any violence in japan? no. any protests in japan? no.

I guess you missed the JT picture of the day that showed protests and had links to violence in Japan against Koreans. I also guess you missed that Ishihara was the one that got this rolling in the first place.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

“We have agreed that Japan and the United States will cooperate to ensure that Japan-China relations will not be seriously harmed,” he added.

He added, after the US flat-out said they are not going to help. Not to worry, though, Genba's job will be up for grabs within a fortnight.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Oh, and I like how the US said flat out they will not be stepping in, as I have said they would not. Japan's on its own. Get ready for a lot of confusion in Okinawa -- people who will demand the US leave and demand their protection at the same time, but if they don't protect them demands for them to leave but fear for if they do.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba, who met with the former CIA chief earlier in the day, called on Beijing to dial down the temperature on the dispute."

But hey, while we ask you to dial things down we're going to ask you for your cooperation while we dial things up. Excuse me, sorry, please, thank you, we hope for your understanding.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

fds: "any protests in japan? no."

Are you being serious? Did you miss the pic of the guy crapping his pants in protest yesterday?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

USA, if you take no sides, move half of your Japanese bases to China. This speech is a shame.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Well said Smith!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It was either buy the islands or let Ishihara and his goons do so. If the government hadn't stepped in and bought them, things would be a lot worse now than they actually are.

Duh, and Ishihara is a Japanese, is he not?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The US will definitely protect Japanese people and land! but the US won't allow JP to intrude others or involve himself in any JP's willing to recover his gained land by imperilist JP from 1890 - 1945. Anyone doesn't understand this will certainly complain a lot. I'm really curious why so many posters here don't even see this!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

tmarie: "JT picture of the day that showed protests and had links to violence in Japan against Koreans. "

yeah, I saw that horrifying video which showed the leaders of "violent right-wing Japanese" thugs being easily shrugged off/turned away by smilng girls in that korean red-light district after exchanging a few words .

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

yosun, as you know, the whole of Ryukyu (Okinawa) island chains actually belong to China, while Tsushima islands are Koreans'. The more serious question would be who is the rightful owner of Manchuria, isn't it ? (at least according to my korean pals).

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Japan is merely reiterating the status quo. Why does Panetta worry? Has Obama finally grown attached to his Nobel Peace Prize?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The US is saying no sides and is on neutral position to China, but it would not say the truth that the US is on Japan's side and US-Japan peace treaty includes Senkaku isles until last minute. Because the US doesn't want to provoke China which vaguely knows the US is always on Japan's side.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

lol... this sound like an ringing endorsement by the US.

What was a purpose of Japan/US Peace Treaty then? Has US been fooling Japan over 60 years? Is US a liar?

The purpose of the treaty is for the US to come to defense of Japan when Japan comes under attack. But it's debatable if those islands are part of Japan. The Chinese say, they are not. And the US obviously thinks it's a disputed island with the ownership up in the air. It's a smart thing for the US to do, to stay away from Japanese and Chinese nationalism, and let them go at it.

Like I said, Japan needs China more than China needs Japan. Any reasonable country would recognize this and would try hard not to provoke a bee hive. But what do I expect from a race of people in Japan who don't even really understand what a currency swap means, but are enveloped by island of self-superiority and self-importance to think clearly.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Ironically, the biggest loser from all this could be Taiwan.

Basically, this is turning out t be a huge reconfirmation that the US is no longer willing to confront China in Northeast Asia, even where the sovereignty of one of the most important US allies is at stake.

I remember under Clinton how the PRC was forced to cancel military exercises near Taiwan because the US redeployed an aircraft carrier as a show of intent in response.

It looks like the US is now openly saying it wouldn't do that again. I would take huge heart from this if I were China, that it can resolve both the issues of sovereignty of the "Daiyous" and Taiwan in the same breath - by parking its soon to be finished aircraft carrier beside them confident that the US no longer has the nerve to intervene.

Time for people in Okinawa to start learning Chinese, and people in Taiwan to purchase and start memorizing Mao's Red Book...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

But what do I expect from a race of people in Japan who don't even really understand what a currency swap means, but are enveloped by island of self-superiority and self-importance to think clearly.

Well I doubt it's their fault that China is much lower on the Human Development Index and GDP per capita scale than Japan or the fact that these Japanese snobs had to earn a popular mandate to get where they are as opposed to their Chinese counterparts who got there posts through some obscure Commie feud.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

To protect, we also need to equip same items? :(

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US politician have done a great job to enhance the US interests in Asia with the Japan paying the price.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Dude, China OWNS the US!

You know the saying: I owe you a hundred dollars, I've got a problem; I owe you a trillion dollars, you've got a problem.

The loser in the US-China trade imbalance will ultimately be the American people, whose savings will be wiped out when the value of the dollar collapses.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No war !!!! Let's exchange fortune cookies and sembae !!!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Smith - My point exactly. Now that the US is reaffirming the suspicion that PRC owns it, ironically, Taiwan who even PRC claims the Daiyoutais are part of ("Taiwan Province") is frankly in greater danger than Japan.

By being ambivalent on the security of Okinawa, the Defense Secretary is confirming that the US has lost its resolve to face down China in Korea and Taiwan - which is the primary purpose of the troops in Okinawa.

Taiwan seems happy to let PRC fight on its behalf over the Senkakus, but in doing so, I hope it realizes, as Chiang Kai Shek clearly did, that allowing the Senkakus to be a litmus test for US commitment to regional security could ultimately result in Taiwan's own security being substantially undermined.

At least the people of Taiwan have a head start over Okinawa in that they already speak Mandarin. Now they just have to unlearn democracy...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Honestly I don't support military war AT ALL! War is BAD. But I guess China can hurt Japan's economically. I've read that economists agree that Japan rely more on Chinese's market than the other way around. But honestly I wish there'd be a peaceful ending to all these.

Are you implying there is an impending conflict? on what basis? all I see is a mob of angry Chinese that mostly vandalizes the property of their fellow countrymen and burdening their own insurance firms that have to pay out Japanese businesses that have suffered variable losses. Even German cars were vandalizes by the mob that poorly guessed that Mercedes is a Japanese maker.

We are at odds against a people who only get paid like US30 cents/hour and can't afford even our low end products. Who cares about them. Let them riot on their own soil to their hearts' content.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hikozaemon:Ironically, the biggest loser from all this could be Taiwan.

It could be true, but anyway we don't want to lose our honor to beg someone for protecting us and we also don't want oue fishermen to be insulted/ illegally arrested again and again in our traditional fishing ground. We've been growing up facing difficulties like eating dinners daily.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It looks like the US is now openly saying it wouldn't do that again. I would take huge heart from this if I were China, that it can resolve both the issues of sovereignty of the "Daiyous" and Taiwan in the same breath - by parking its soon to be finished aircraft carrier beside them confident that the US no longer has the nerve to intervene.

China now has an aircraft carrier but it is said the carrier is a joke. China remade the carrier from regular old battleship which were supposed to go to amusement park when China bought it. I wonder if China really can use it as aircraft carrier that jet fighters take off and land on its short runway and pilots needs hell hours for drill/practice everyday to become a good pilot. If pilots are not good enough, they would plunge into sea water off the carrier or crash into the runway.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The US should have had a clear position on this from the beginning. i.e 1945

2 ( +2 / -0 )

China lost possession of the uninhabited islands in the Sino-Japan war in the late 1800's. After which, the islands were inhabited by Japanese fishermen(first/only inhabitants) until late in WWII. At the end of WWII, the US took possession of the islands along with all of Okinawa and the Ogasawara archipelago. In 1972, the San Francisco Treaty returned the Okinawan and Ogasawara islands back to japan, as pre-war. The problem is that the treaty was written in broad language. China is pressing territorial claims in several places to the extent of claiming the entirety of the South China Sea even as far as Philippines. The US needs to step up and set the record straight.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Japan bashers at it again. Tell me you dont think these brainwashed Chinese are overreacting. No, matter of fact, lets blame it all conveniently on the Japanese side protecting their interest, afterall thats how we get our hard-on. These Japanese must be really evil, against Korea, they offered to take the issue to the ICJ. How dare they. The Russians took the Kuril islands, why should the Japanese complain? And why didnt they just let the Chinese have the Senkaku islands? Pathetic sense of logic!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

NeoJamal, you funny! Is it really true, that some idiots in China thought that Mercedez Benz was Japanese?? hahaha!! I know many Toyota cars etc..really try hard to duplicate Mercedez down to the last details, so maybe the poor Chinese got confused between real Mercedez and the Japanese copies??

4 ( +4 / -0 )

What was the meaning of Panetta's statements? Didn't look like he was confirming the USA commitment to their ally Japan and stability in the region. Shame.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Hikozaemon

Come off it man, that's only Obama's manservant doing the talking. Unless you've already made up your mind that Romney will lose this November. I won't ask you to have faith in Romney but please believe in the judgement of the American people and their desire to stand up for their allies in the time of need.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Man, don't be naive, all the news are just focusing on the violence scenes. In fact, there are just a few cars damaged, it isn't much for the protests with millions people.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Thomas

Duh, and Ishihara is a Japanese, is he not?

Indeed he is. You do realise the difference between a loony right-wing idiot being in charge of the islands and the Japanese government being in charge? Or don't you see that they're not the same?

(And I stopped saying "Duh" to people I disagreed with when I was about thirteen.)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Indeed he is. You do realise the difference between a loony right-wing idiot being in charge of the islands and the Japanese government being in charge? Or don't you see that they're not the same?

Call him a loony right-wing idiot but he also happens to be the governor of the CAPITAL CITY OF JAPAN. And he happens to have many supporters. He has amassed $10 million in donations.

(And I stopped saying "Duh" to people I disagreed with when I was about thirteen.)

Except that I'm not disagreeing with you as this is not an opinion. I'm saying "Duh" because I'm pointing out the obvious...duh?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Marylander: the whole of Ryukyu (Okinawa) island chains actually belong to China; who is the rightful owner of Manchuria

It's not off topic but to reply questions:

Ryukyu islands was an independent kingdom, which got along close with China was only for free trade right like today's TPP only as I understand. Manchuria belonged to Madarin(the strongest over there) and many other tribes before, after Madarin defeated Hans and set up Qin dynasty, it became part of China which is composed of so many different folks. It's correct some original Korean still live in Manchuria as Chinese today.
2 ( +2 / -0 )

Are you implying there is an impending conflict? on what basis? all I see is a mob of angry Chinese that mostly vandalizes the property of their fellow countrymen and burdening their own insurance firms that have to pay out Japanese businesses that have suffered variable losses.

Over a thousand Chinese fishermen boats are incoming towards the Senkaku islands. Good luck.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The 9:00PM NHK TV news today also mentioned what the message of the US is:

Panetta told reporters that: the U.S. commitment to Japan, in the form of a mutual defense treaty, was unwavering. Obviously we stand by our treaty obligations. They are longstanding, and that does not change.

This already tells a lot

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Thomas

My point was that, by buying the islands, the Japanese government kept them out of the hands of the extremists. Far from being a provocative move, as you suggest, it was an attempt to defuse a potentially very dangerous situation. And it seems to have worked. Surely your point that Ishihara is Japanese is irrelevant?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The democratic US remains Japans ally and the PRC dictatorship remains a military foe. But Obama lacks the firm moral center to point equivocating pandering Panetta the right way. Any questions so far?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

My point was that, by buying the islands, the Japanese government kept them out of the hands of the extremists. Far from being a provocative move, as you suggest, it was an attempt to defuse a potentially very dangerous situation. And it seems to have worked. Surely your point that Ishihara is Japanese is irrelevant?

Well first off it didn't work, because the Chinese got angry, anyway. The intentions were good but to the Chinese it doesn't matter who bought the islands. You call them "extremists" - but you're forgetting again that we're talking about the governor of Tokyo. They're not some fringe group with little to no power or influence.

So basically you're saying that the action of the GOVERNOR OF TOKYO is irrelevant, which is nonsense. People who support Ishihara are obviously NOT IN THE MINORITY.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Dog - NHK included the statement that it does not take sides on sovereignty as a matter of policy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the Americans could not be in a better situation, eventhough it would create some short term problems. If the economic ties with China would be seriously disturbed in a medium or long term, it would result in more goods being produced in the U.S. and they would no longer be imported to the extent than today from China. The know-how is in the U.S. and there's also enough manpower.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Thomas

So basically you're saying that the action of the GOVERNOR OF TOKYO is irrelevant, which is nonsense. People who support Ishihara are obviously NOT IN THE MINORITY.

Please have another look at my post. I didn't say that the action of the Tokyo governor was irrelevant. Far from it.

As to Ishihara's supporters, I'd suggest that whether or not they're in the minority is decidedly uncertain. Outside of Tokyo has there been a poll? If there has, I'd like to see the results.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/20/the_sino_japanese_naval_war_of_2012?page=0,0

A possible embarassing military loss by China and Japan's revision of the constitution is at stake. I doubt there will be a war. China will just basically send bunch of patrol ships and fishing vessels.

In some parts, the anti-Japan protests have turned into somewhat an anti government rally.

http://ampontan.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/china-demos-the-rest-of-the-story/

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Japan is very close to China. It is hard for the US to protect Japan now.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No "Tomodachi" things this time?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

yosun, i am actually Japanese. Atypical Japanese with multi-racial/multi-ethnic background. But, typical in that I am quite pro-Taiwanese just like most of the Japanese population.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

lucabrasi, let me ask you a question. If Ishihara was such a loon, and I'm not saying that he is not, then why are the Japanese people not against him and his actions?

I know that you think Ishihara is a loon. But I'm not asking what you think of him. I'm asking what the JAPANESE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE think of him. If Japanese people VOTED HIM TO BE THE GOVERNOR OF TOKYO, then that means that the MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS OBVIOUSLY SUPPORT HIM!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The question that I'm asking is WHY DID THE JAPANESE PEOPLE AGREE to go along with the Ishihara's proposal to purchase the islands? Why did they donate $10 million?

The government had NO intention of buying the islands before Ishihara offered to purchase the islands.

And then you're saying that the action of Ishihara is "irrelevant". That is wrong. The Chinese got angry BECAUSE of Ishihara. What Ishihara has done is clearly NOT irrelevant, whether you WANT TO think that way, or not.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The intentions were good but to the Chinese it doesn't matter who bought the islands.

Yep. Another example of Chinese government using anything to stir up the brainwashed citizens.

The "concept" of selling/buying land to anybody is totally foreign to these people.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Yep. Another example of Chinese government using anything to stir up the brainwashed citizens.

That's not the point. The point is that Ishihara provoked the Chinese and there's no stopping them.

The "concept" of selling/buying land to anybody is totally foreign to these people.

No, they're upset because you know, China also has a claim to those islands. Japan is not the only side that counts.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Anyway, the point is that Ishihara has already pissed off a whole lot of Chinese people. And that has a magnitude of grave consequences that he is not willing to take. Just because some guy says that Ishihara is irrelevant does not actually make it so.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

(initially, i thought you are either manland chinese or korean, because there are so many of them in Japan Today)

I highly doubt that there are many Koreans or Chinese on JAPANToday. There's not much reason for them to be here.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

??? I believe it was the owner's intention to sell the property before the lease ran out. As you stated, "it doesn't matter who bought the islands", remember??

No, it was Ishihara's idea to buy the islands.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Thomas

You're misreading. The only time I used the word "irrelevant" was in reference to your own statement that "Ishihara is a Japanese, is he not?". I didn't (still don't) see the relevance. I've never stated that Ishihara, or his actions, are irrelevant.

As to his popularity, I have two questions. What percentage of the popular vote did he win last time in the Tokyo elections? More than half? I honestly don't know. And how popular is he across the country, outside Tokyo? Local politicians are sometimes insanely popular at home, but much less so in other parts of the nation.

Like I said, I don't know. But I'd like to hear from anybody a little better informed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lucabrasi, there's no such thing as universal support or appraisal of a single person. But if he is the governor of the largest city in Japan, then you can bet that enough people support him. It doesn't matter whether he is insanely popular and has the majority of support in Japan or only a little bit. The fact is that enough people in Japan support him. AND the Chinese care enough about whatever Ishihara says or does.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No, it was Ishihara's idea to buy the islands.

Because initially, the central government had no intention of buying them.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

I also heard some korean think Confucius was actually Korean and Ming dynasty's founder was also Korean!

You are Taiwanese for sure. They're the ones responsible for spreading anti Korean rumors in China.

Yeah, you "heard". You heard from your fellow Chinese internet. lol....

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Well anyway, Ishihara has amassed 2,615,120 (43.40%) votes in 2011. 2,811,486 (51.06%) votes in 2007. 3,087,190 (70.21%) votes. So yep, you can bet that the vast majority of the people in Tokyo support him.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Thomas

Well anyway, Ishihara has amassed 2,615,120 (43.40%) votes in 2011.... So yep, you can bet that the vast majority of the people in Tokyo support him.

I was never any good at maths. Hopeless, in fact. But even I know that 43.40% doesn't constitute a "vast majority", somewhat the contrary, in fact.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You do realize that you're not making any sense, right?

I'm not understanding what your point is Thomas so let's review your initial post in this thread.

Buying the islands just when the disputes were erupting... nice.

Like I said in another thread, the owners were intenting on selling the land before the lease expires. Since, at the beginning, the central government had no intention of buying the lands, he asked Tokyo governor. So as you said, "it doesn't matter who bought the islands" so what's your argument?? Whether the intention to buy or the actual buyout happens in August, September, October, or March of the following year by either central government or Tokyo really doesn't change the fact that China will go ape$shit over this eventually.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

yosun, most of the Japanese, including myself, will be glad to share (or even offer completely) the Senkaku islands witth (to) the Taiwanese people, if we feel Taiwan would consolidate its independent status in the years to come, because it's truism for us that truly independent Taiwan is our best friend in East Asia. There is firm consensus among the japanese at large that we should respect the Taiwanese people's fishing rights in the area, and solve the issue as early as possible. The Japanese perceptions of the Taiwanese (as distinct from mainlanders) have been always really, really good. No argument about it. (But the international/regional/domestic politics are complicated, aren't they?)

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

What Panetta said is nothing new, why some people here feel frustrated for it ? It just proved that they are so biased. They are always self-centered.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I think the current situation is very dangerous.

Look at what China and Russia said in the beggining of current year:

China: "China Will Not Hesitate To Protect Iran Even With A Third World War"

Russia: "Should Anything Happen to Iran … This Will Be a Direct Threat to Our National Security"

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Some of you who left comments put way too much faith on defense treaty with the US and some even mentioned taking the dispute to the international court. Law and treaties are borne out of politics. Politics reflects the will of whoever is in charge at the time of the writing. Law and treaties often aim for the status quo but that status quo also changes in time. That's why treaties and law get purged and re-written over time. The usefulness of the japan-US defense treaty has been expired for quite some time now. Because the realities in Asia, with the rise of China and all the subsequent effects, are not reflected in the original treaty. We live in a very different world now. I'm sorry to disappoint but that defense treaty with the US is, at this point in time, really worth only about the paper it was written on and nothing more. It really comes down to the current politics and unfortunately, a war is often used as a political tool. It takes only one party for both parties to be engaged in a war.

On a side note, while i don't blame the average Japanese for not being sensitive on the Chinese anniversary of Mukden incident (just because they were perhaps never taught the proper history), i do believe some higher-ups in the Japanese government were aware of the full ramifications of such a provocative action, especially just before the Mukden anniversary. What were they thinking?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

while i don't blame the average Japanese for not being sensitive on the Chinese anniversary of Mukden incident (just because they were perhaps never taught the proper history)

It is also to my surprise that some people here are so ignorant of history. The Japan government seems to be dominated by some politician with little experience in foreign affairs.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

FernandoUchiyamaSep. 18, 2012 - 12:36AM JST

Everyone is arguing over the fractured history of the islands like children fighting over a toy. Meanwhile, China and the US are engaged in a power struggle that spreads from the Middle East to Japan. What most Japanese don't understand is that Japan is the US beachhead in this struggle much like Iran is to China. To a point, these external lands will be defended. What is unknown is how expendable these lands will be to the China and the US in the end. As with all things, only time will tell. Until then, we can all proceed with our petty arguments about things that mean nothing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

On a side note, while i don't blame the average Japanese for not being sensitive on the Chinese anniversary of Mukden incident (just because they were perhaps never taught the proper history), i do believe some higher-ups in the Japanese government were aware of the full ramifications of such a provocative action, especially just before the Mukden anniversary. What were they thinking?

and what makes you think this was not intended?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

i hope your little island is precious enough to sacrifice innocent lives

Well, the buck has to stop somewhere with respect to China's conceited rise to power, and obviously it didn't with the "Please lend us more money" US.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

im in full support of the war as long as there are only chinese and japanese casualties

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

America has to fulfill the terms of the Security Agreement or risk having it canceled. Just which parts of Japan are they willing to defend? The American defense Secretary needs a zipper in his mouth. Saying America is not taking sides is implying they will not help defend these islands. It will be a signal for China to attack Japan.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

GWSep. 17, 2012 - 07:25PM JST but his schedule originally did not include a stop in Tokyo. The row over the islands likely prompted the change in >his itinerary, analysts said.

Ossan, told ya the yanks were getting ticked off with Japan! Man wud love to hear some of the words spoken.

As a "Yank" i Can tell you that if China wants to take the Senkakuis woith "military force" the United States will respond. As another poster accurately pointed out - don't confuse the "dispute over sovereignty" with a "dispute of armed conflict". You are obviously notdistinguishing between the two,

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

the owners were intenting on selling the land before the lease expires. Since, at the beginning, the central government had no intention of buying the lands

There is absolutely no need to buy land from a bogus owner as any private ownership would have been rendered null and void in 1945 when Japan lost the war and gave up its sovereignty over the Ryukyu islands and Diaoyu islands according to the Potsdam Agreement and subsequently, the San Francisco Peace Treaty. That is the reason why Japanese who visited Ryukyu must have their passport stamped at the Ryukyu immigration between 1945 to 1971.

And that is the reason why the Diaoyu islands and Ryukyu islands can't even be found in any map of Japan either published in Japan or other nations in the world between 1945 to 1971 such as this one:

http://retromaps.tumblr.com/image/30107477891

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There is absolutely no need to buy land from a bogus owner

And there is no need to lease either. Just tell the truth that the ownership is bogus.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Senkaku islands belonged to the Ryukyu Kingdom. Ryukyu's Cho dynasty became part of Imperial Japan in the 19th century, so the Senkaku islands belong to Japan. Ironically, the Ryukyu Kingdom was always promoting peace and trade between the Ming/Qing dynasties, the Korean dynasties, other South East Asian dynasties and Shogun Japan. Now the Ryukyu Kingdom is in the middle of dispute for supremacy between USA (with its colony = Post WWII Japan) and China. Ryukyu's Okinawa is essentially a US military base (instead of a peaceful island) and the Senkaku islands being China's way to challenge this US military base. The poor Japanese people are just paying the taxes to support this US geopolitical power game...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Does Panetta really wants peace and prosperity in East-Asia ? He is just ensuring US interests in the region by keeping Post-WWII Japan as a US colony, by keeping its 50000+ troops in Okinawa ! The poor Japanese people, not only have to pay Uncle Sam to keep the military bases in Okinawa, but the Japanese people also have to take the economic sanctions from the Chinese Dragon... This is US 'divide et impera' power geopolitics in East-Asia, but I am afraid this one could escalate... The Dragon is prepared for minor military fighting, because this would get support from Taiwan and the whole overseas Chinese communities, and I am afraid the US military is not prepared to fight for Japan (but just letting Japan take all the financial and military beating...) because this would bankrupt US economy !

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Everyone, don't let the Chinese fool you. They are not after the islands. What they want is to take all the resources under the ocean to themselves. Japan and all countries in East Asia must not yield to those greedy b@stards (I mean the Chinese leaders and brainwashed f00ls, not the majority of good Chinese people)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

There is absolutely no need to buy land from a bogus owner as any private ownership would have been rendered null and void in 1945 when Japan lost the war and gave up its sovereignty over the Ryukyu islands and Diaoyu islands according to the Potsdam Agreement and subsequently, the San Francisco Peace Treaty. That is the reason why Japanese who visited Ryukyu must have their passport stamped at the Ryukyu immigration between 1945 to 1971.

False. Okinawa and the islands were under U.S. trusteeship pursuant to the Peace Treaty which was agreed, signed, and ratified by nations.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Comments here are really silly. Panetta. and the article. says nothing about not honoring the military alliance. Rather, he simply declines to take sides in the territorial conflict.

(Thought I can virtually guarantee that off the record the US supports Japanese interests here... He just can't say that in front of a microphone.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

False. Okinawa and the islands were under U.S. trusteeship pursuant to the Peace Treaty which was agreed, signed, and ratified by nations.

This part is true......

That is the reason why Japanese who visited Ryukyu must have their passport stamped at the Ryukyu immigration between 1945 to 1971.

Also to add to this the Okinawan's had to get a passport to visit mainland as well. Even to the point where during the Boys National Baseball Tournament (Koshien), when the losing team members traditionally gather up some of the Koshien dirt to bring back home as a memory of their participation, they had to throw it all away because of the US Immigration laws that were in effect during the period in question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

False. Okinawa and the islands were under U.S. trusteeship pursuant to the Peace Treaty which was agreed, signed, and ratified by nations.

I thought this was true as well, until a little bit of research and this popped up; so evidently the trusteeship never occurred.

Article 3 of the treaty left the Bonin Islands and the Ryukyu Islands, which included Okinawa and the Amami, Miyako and Yaeyama Islands groups, under a potential U.S. trusteeship. Whilst the treaty suggested that these territories would become U.S. trusteeship, at the end that option was not pursued. The Amami Islands were eventually restored to Japan on December 25, 1953, as well as the Bonin Islands on April 5, 1968.[15] In 1969 U.S.-Japan negotiations authorized the transfer of authority over the Ryūkyūs to Japan to be implemented in 1972. In 1972, the United States "reversion" of the Ryūkyūs occurred along with the ceding of control over the nearby (uninhabited) Senkaku Islands.[16] Both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, now commonly known as "Taiwan", argue that this agreement did not determine the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands.

Here is Article 3;

Article 3

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.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A bit more research and this is what happened; So there was no trusteeship set up at all and the US Military controlled the islands. Japan never lost sovereignty over the islands, just control.

After the Battle of Okinawa in World War II, the armed forces of the United States occupied Okinawa and set up a local government. In 1952, Japan signed the Treaty of San Francisco and admitted the control of Okinawa by the U.S. government. USCAR, which was a subordinate organization of the forces of the United States, surveilled the Ryukyuan Government and could overrule all the decisions made by the Ryukyuan Government. Technically speaking, USCAR was thus a civil affairs administration of the United States Military Government (USMG).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I apologize to Japanese people for a spineless Sec of Defense, from the USA, and a dumb and stupid president, it is a simple repeat of years of Chinese efforts to bully its way into power rather than earn it by mutual respect and fair and decent treatment of their own people. Remember that this is the country, China that stole Tibet and buried that poor country under waves of forced imigration, which threatens Taiwan and refuses to accept the clear will of the Tiwanese to be a free nation and which ran over its own students with tanks and still refuses to allow anyone to even talk about that tragedy. Now they are trying to muscle in to the Pacific using their baby navy ..which is a sad mess (that is an aircraft carrier that WAS a Russian carrier but never finished btw)...well that just wont work in modern terms, and Japan is being very reasonable and showing a lot of statesmanship. Sorry the US is too cowardly to make a clear statement of support, international Law is clear on ownership of islands, and these are clearly now Japanese islands. The Chinese noodle navy can flap around all it wants and huff and puff, but it wont change the facts...just make them look more and more silly.

There is no fight if only one side wants it. Japan is being very smart.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Did everyone read a different speech?

He simply said and quite clearly I thought that in the case of these rocks where the owner ship is in question they will not take sides, but that they ate 100% committed to the defense of Japan and will honor the treaty.

Then sign a deal for radar and missiles..

Meaning in short, stop this madness over some insignificant islands, it's clearly politically motivated on all sides, however should it turn nasty and reach into in undesputed Japanese territory they will have no choice but to get involved.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I thought this was true as well, until a little bit of research and this popped up; so evidently the trusteeship never occurred.

I believe it did albeit not a customary one by U.N.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I believe it did albeit not a customary one by U.N.

Actually it didn't, the posts that I added to show what it was were deleted for some reason or another.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The American defense Secretary needs a zipper in his mouth. Saying America is not taking sides is implying they will not help defend these islands. It will be a signal for China to attack Japan.

Perhaps you could tell Ishihara to zipper his? You can't have it both ways Yuri. You cry about the Americans, demand they get out and then demand they defend you. Make up your mind.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

gregoryharuko Sep. 18, 2012 - 04:53AM JST

gregoryharuko Sep. 18, 2012 - 05:21AM JST

Spot on. Everything else is just white noise, something for people to talk about to make them feel like they are on top of the situation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have a great suggestion for ending this silly dispute. Have the Japanese women's volleyball team and the Chinese women's volleyball team play an extensive series of matches, the first team to win 50 matches gets the islands for their country! ( This could very well go to 99 matches, lol! )

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As a "Yank" i Can tell you that if China wants to take the Senkakuis woith "military force" the United States will respond. As another poster accurately pointed out - don't confuse the "dispute over sovereignty" with a "dispute of armed conflict". You are obviously notdistinguishing between the two,

Ossan,

I am aware of the difference, are you AWARE that the US Govt doesnt want to send its own down to die at the Senkaku's for NO DAMNED GOOD REASON!

That is why your govt is OBVIOUSLY TICKED, because Japan is playing with fire & is willing to sacrifice US personnel/assets, because of an embicile in Tokyo & a bunch of incompetants in Nagatacho!

How about you, you ok with that?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Senkaku islands belonged to the Ryukyu Kingdom.

The Diaoyu islands were never part of Ryukyu Kingdom which was a protectorate of China.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Koji-Taira/2119

The China-Japan Clash Over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands

"The acknowledged boundary between China and Ryukyu until the demise of the Ryukyu Kingdom was somewhere in the sea east and south of the Diaoyu Islands (west and north of the Ryukyu Islands). This Sino-Ryukyuan boundary became a Sino-Japanese boundary when Japan took over Ryukyu and proclaimed it Okinawa Prefecture in 1879."

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

False. Okinawa and the islands were under U.S. trusteeship pursuant to the Peace Treaty

Read Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty carefully, it is UN trusteeship which must be submitted and approved by the UN, not US trusteeship. You think US=UN?

This trusteeship was originally suggested by China with an eye for future independence of Ryukyu from Japan during the Cairo Conference in 1943.

From US disclosed document:

"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.""

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

This trusteeship was originally suggested by China with an eye for future independence of Ryukyu from Japan during the Cairo Conference in 1943.

And that is the reason why the Potsdam Agreement 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 determine."

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Read Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty carefully, it is UN trusteeship which must be submitted and approved by the UN, not US trusteeship. You think US=UN

That's not what it states on the treaty.

This trusteeship was originally suggested by China with an eye for future independence of Ryukyu from Japan during the Cairo Conference in 1943.

Irrelevant. The mere fact that ROC did not protest the treaty makes it irrelevant. Read the Vienna Convention on treaties.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

JustaBigguy, the Heritage Foundation is not the US Government, especially not the present administration. It was very influential during the Bush years and I'm sure would be under a President Romney, but I doubt Obama gives a hoot about Heritage opinions.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I think US has a plan to use Japan as the front line to contain China. Asia will be in deeper chaos.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The US is not going to help on this issue -- that's pretty clear -- aside from putting pressure on both governments to calm down.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Herve

China lost possession of the uninhabited islands in the Sino-Japan war in the late 1800's. After which, the islands were inhabited by Japanese fishermen(first/only inhabitants) until late in WWII.

Herve, don't let Chinese debate-framing lead you astray. At no point did China ever have possession of these islands, inhabited or not.

China is trying to subtly reinforce its position by using words like "return" and "give back" -- but you can't get "back" something you never owned.

Nobody lived on these islands or claimed ownership of them until the Meiji era. Either they were Okinawan historically, or they belonged to no one, but they certainly weren't Chinese.

@Guru29

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Koji-Taira/2119

The China-Japan Clash Over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: "The acknowledged boundary between China and Ryukyu until the demise of the Ryukyu Kingdom was somewhere in the sea east and south of the Diaoyu Islands (west and north of the Ryukyu Islands). This Sino-Ryukyuan boundary became a Sino-Japanese boundary when Japan took over Ryukyu and proclaimed it Okinawa Prefecture in 1879."

If this border were "acknowledged", it would mean that Yonaguni, which is southwest of the islands in question, is on the Chinese side of the boundary -- which it certainly is not (and has never been).

That description makes it seem like neither China nor the Ryukyu Kingdom (in Shuri, on the main Okinawan island) even acknowledged the existence of the Yaeyamas and Yonaguni.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fds, "and that is why japan needs to do a scientific test a thermo-nuclear device, its not in violation of non-proliferation. its a scientific experiment, kinda like scientific whaling! :D?

If japan goes to nuclear, both America and China will stop you or distroy you for sure. America knows well about japan and it will not tolerance japan to go nuclear. You guys think that American army stay in japan only for pretect you from Korean or Chinese attacking you? You are wrong. American in japan is primaryly provent japan to go to military again. This was the purpose in 1945 and this is the purpose now. No mistake.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

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