politics

Secret Japan-China talks held over island dispute

64 Comments

A senior Chinese government official has secretly visited Japan for talks with Japanese officials aimed at improving bilateral relations damaged by an ongoing territorial row, a report said Tuesday.

The talks involving a high-ranking official from the Chinese foreign ministry's Asian division were thought to have been held in early October, Japanese news agency Jiji Press reported from Beijing quoting Chinese government sources.

A high-ranking official from the Japanese foreign ministry attended the meeting, the report said.

A Japanese foreign ministry official declined comment on the content of the report, saying: "Japan and China have been making various exchanges at various levels."

The Tokyo-Beijing ties took a nosedive in September last year over the ownership of the Japan-controlled Senkaku islands, which China also claims and calls the Diaoyus.

The row over the islands in the East China Sea has led to warnings of a possible armed confrontation.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe managed a brief encounter and shook the hand of Chinese President Xi Jinping last week on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific summit in Indonesia. But China rejected a formal sit-down meeting between them due to the island dispute.

Abe has not held formal talks with Chinese and South Korean leaders since taking office last December. Tokyo also has a dispute with Seoul over a group of South Korea-controlled isles.

The legacy of Japan's 20th century wartime aggression has also been souring Tokyo's ties with the neighbors.

© (C) 2013 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

64 Comments
Login to comment

So why was it kept from us?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

As I've said before China has put itself into a corner on the Senkakus. Thy can't take them by force without starting a war with the United States, they've learned that Japan can't be intimidated into giving them up, they can't take it to the ICJ for fear of other Asian nations taking China to the same court for numerous disputes, and they can't turn around and tell the Chinese people that they "can't get the Senkakus back" after the government convinced them that they were "stolen by Japan. It's only natural that they have been working for some kind of backroom deal to put the issue to rest without turning the people against them.

-1 ( +15 / -16 )

Relations between Japan and China is alot more complicated since the two countries maritime agencies and militaries have little understanding of each other's intentions and recent tensions have made this worse. In the event of an accident, they would have a vested interest in blaming the other side. Their monopoly over information would shape perceptions back home among both leaders and the public. The news of a clash with Japan would pour oil on the nationalist fires in China. Beijing would have to choose between continuing to escalate or face the political peril of appearing weak against Japan. Top leaders mistrust each other and foreign ministries have been incapable of dialogue beyond reading official statements. The two countries need to establish new and more stable communication channels. Unfortunately, this is just the kind of diplomacy that both China and Japan are both neglecting. They need to find ways to manage their differences, especially in this period of chronic crises.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Guess it's not secret anymore. And why have secret talks/meetings?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"So why was it kept from us?"

"And why have secret talks/meetings?"

Why? Because right wing nationalists in both countries will do their best to sabotage the proceedings.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Secret meetings are kept from the public as I think it would contain information which may bring negative impact on doing business between both sides and such meetings has been going on since last year but so far the result is what we looking at right now.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I have no doubt that it is the Chinese side that wants it kept secret as it would contradict the official position that they have been feeding their people. That would foment anti-government sentiment, the CCP's Achilles heel. As for Japan they are a democratic country and there is no benefit to them to keep it secret, in fact it makes Japan look better to have it known that discussions are going on.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

whatever it takes.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It is sad to see Japan and China don't talk to each other over a dispute which is very common since ancient time.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

So why was it kept from us?

I would think it has more to do with the Chinese public.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Like many times in China's history before, Chinese officials have decided on a policy, based purely on domestic circumstances, for which there is no plausible end scenario,

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Ossan: the US could not afford a war. They don't even have a functioning government! If china wanted to take the islands by force, no one could stop them. The meetings are being held behind closed doors because it would foment political unrest in BOTH nations.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Well, China has made the first adult move. Hopefully Japan can match China's maturity instead of saying wanting talks. The whole of Asia can benefit from the 2 giants cooperation and Abe needs to do something before he is finished by next April when the new tax comes in. Then of course he can also scrap it come April!

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

This is good news and glad to see Abe heading in this direction. Its not the time for nationalism and I think China will respond well to any effort made by Japan. You must remember, there was progress during past administrations; it wasnt until the extremist regained control that the escalations started. Whether Abe did this on his own, or from pressure from the outside remains to be seen.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Another of Shinzo Abe's fantasy stories? He eats Fukushima rice every day. How about that? A secret visit by the Chinese? This stand-up comedian never fails to surprise with all the lies he has been churning up and telling the world. Aren't the Japanese people truly ashamed with such a comic tragic character? An absurdly interesting subject for Japanese manga stories?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why have secret talks/meetings?

Choreography.

Both can claim ownership of the process, put their own spin on it, and eventually declare a a victory for common sense amidst a new mutual understanding.

Don't be surprised if Abe does a U-turn on a contentious Sino-Japanese issue.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I always think it’s better for Japan friend to negotiate this issue with China earlier. China is still a developing country so JP can bargain with better conditions now. Historically China doesn’t mind to wait for some 30, 50 years for solving this sort of problem, however I don’t think Japanese want to rely on the US for another 67 years and China will only get stronger and stronger as everyone know. Taiwan legally owned these islets but we don’t want you guys bring chaos whole far east so we always welcome discussion instead of conflict.

BTY, the source of this news came from China side so it’s common sense JP want to keep the discussion secretly anyway it’s not bad thing why worry about losing face… etc.?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The fact that Japan and China would hold undisclosed talks is a step in a positive direction overall. It suggests that there at least a few government officials on both sides who realize constructive bilateral relations benefit both sides. It is just sad that these positive efforts must be concealed from the public.

Obviously, certain officials are faced with a catch-22. On the one hand considerable economic benefit derives from healthy Japan-China relations, but on the other hand any show of conciliation could lead toward such officials losing their grip on power at home if public sentiment they have actively fueled against a foreign threat were to wane, thereby leading to a greater focus on dysfunctional government at home. Sticky situation.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The Chinese are in trouble because there's no point of compromise.The door is open to dialogue but Japan does not need to be compliant.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Sometimes, Chinese people are easier to talk to than koreans.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

It just another sign that their bubble economy is about to burst. I'll bet there is going to be a massive chain of default next February during the Chinese New Year.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

IMO, the meeting was held in private to keep the media out of it and to keep all the extremist wankers off the streets. A pretty wise move actually.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

smithinjapanOct. 16, 2013 - 09:49AM JST Ossan: the US could not afford a war. They don't even have a functioning government! If china wanted to take the >islands by force, no one could stop them. The meetings are being held behind closed doors because it would foment >political unrest in BOTH nations.

Wrong on all counts again smith. No country can afford an all out war, period. Do you think for a moment that China can and the U.S. can't? The proof that you are completely incorrect in your claim that China could take the islands is the fact that US has told China that they would defend the Senkakus, China whined about it, and to this date refrains from sending any PLAN vessels to the islands.In other words, the United States has ALREADY stopped them. And you are also incorrect in that disclosing the secret discussions would foment unrest in Japan where there is nothing to be gained by the government by keeping it secret. Only in China would disclosure put the government in a contradictory position vis-à-vis the population, which the government themselves whipped up into a frenzy.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

@samurai blue China"s economy is far from a bubble. They have so many aces that they have not revealed and use yet! There is finance and banking. There is medical and hospitals. There is education, infrastructure, tourism, child care, tv programs etc. etc. China simply has too much to grow and they are now exploring joint explorations with Malaysia, Vietnam, and Brunei. They have also signed high speed rails with Thailand. Cooperation with Japan is good for everyone and everyone knows that this benefits Japan more than China and that's why China is playing hardball.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

@Asian2013

Get you head out of the sand boy, there more then 30 very large ghost towns in mainland china as well as the biggest shopping mall in Asia picking up dust due to their reckless construction to pump up the GDP. Now there is a ticking time bomb on their hands called maturity on investments in which they have to pay up all the money they had collected with interest high as 20% annual in which they have no other choice then to default.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Secret from Ishihara too?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So why was it kept from us?

There is no doubt Shinzo Abe would want to keep the negotiation secretive since he has denied that Japan has any territorial dispute with China and furthermore, he also said Japan would never negotiate with China regarding the dispute.

Thy can't take them by force without starting a war with the United States

If the US goes to war with its WWII ally, China to help the Japanese to regain what has been determined to be non-Japanese territory according to the various WWII peace treaties/ agreements. It will have at least the following implications:

-It is tantamount to the admission that the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) that the US drafted with China is wrong.

-And since the Potsdam Declaration is wrong, the nuking of Japan for its rejection of the Potsdam Declaration is also wrong. Which means the US government should apologize to Japan for this crime.

-And since the Potsdam Declaration is wrong, the San Francisco Peace Treaty which was drafted based on the Potsdam Declaration and decisions made in other conferences such as the Cairo Conference and Yalta Conference is also wrong.

Taking all the wrongs together, it will means the US government admits its role in WWII is a total mistake. Do you think the Americans are so stupid?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

China knows it is surrounded by peoples who know what they are like; and by people who wnat Japan do do business in their countries instead.

USA is going bust; but china is playing a double hand.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

May level heads and good will prevail.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The way I see it, Japan gained those uninhabited islands from China fair and square by process of war. But if Japan truly renounces war, they should give them back to China. If Japan does not renounce war, they keep them, along with all the doubt it will cast on their claim to have renounced war.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I agree with Sensato, this is good news. You get the most work done by working privately and away from the limelight.

Maybe these Japanese news press should leave these talks alone and let them be. Let them continue to work it out privately until there's some sort of resolution so peripheral groups won't try to sabotage the outcome. Of course, that is unless both sides want these "secret" talks to surface in public.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I've always thought that the main purpose of the Chinese provocation over the Senkaku Islands is to test the Obama's "Asian Pivot". But now that it looks certain that the US will break up in 5 or 6 years, they will have to learn to work together even more closely than ever before. After all they will lose a few trillion dollars when US debt becomes worthless after the breakup.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

ControlFreakOct. 16, 2013 - 04:36PM JST

The way I see it, Japan gained those uninhabited islands from China fair and square by process of war.

No. Any territory Japan had got in April 1895 as a result of the First Sino-Japan War was returned to China after WW2. Senkakus were claimed by Japan as terra nullius in January 1895. Japanese position is that Senkakus were not Chinese territory at any time in the entire length of the history and therefore cannot be "returned" to China. The legal question is if Senkakus belonged to China before 1895.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Ch3cho,

If Japan in 1912-1915 didn't see these disputed islands to be part of China or whatever gov't that controlled the socalled China, then why would the foreign minister writes back and forth with the cabinet leaders on how to "take" the island away from China? How do you take something away from somebody when that "thing" didn't belong to that somebody?

Clearly, the notion is Japan recognized or knew that these disputed island belonged to China. Otherwise, there would be no need for such documentations.

So by your own argument, the legal question of these disputed islands were established that they do belonged to China before 1895. The only argument is whether China (PRC or ROC) acquiesced these islands to a US controlled Japan. That is really the key. Since neither the ROC or PRC participated in any bi-lateral or tri-lateral treaties amongs the concerning parties or agreed to any treatises on secession specifically on these islands. The outcome is clear. Japan never had sovereign rights over these islands.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Senkakus were claimed by Japan as terra nullius in January 1895.

If they were indeed "lands belonging to no one", why then is it that Japan had to invade China in 1894-1895 and destroyed the entire Chinese navy before they grabbed these islands on their way to capture Taiwan by force?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/First_Sino-Japanese_War.svg

And why do major Japanese maps such as the 1785 Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu drawn by Hayashi Shihei and 地球輿地全圖 drawn by 山田聯 in 1810 show the Senkaku/ Diaoyu islands as Chinese territory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1786年中国往琉球海路图2.jpg

And if they were indeed "lands belonging to no one", why then is it that these islands have Chinese names and Japanese continue to use these Chinese names up to this day or at least until very recently after the invasion?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Guru29

Isn't this the original map?

Doesn't look as if Shin had any control to me.

http://record.museum.kyushu-u.ac.jp/sangokutu/page.html?style=b&part=2&no=3

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Look like China wants some under the table dealings to solve Island dispute.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

**Since the Chinese government doesnt provide any evidences regarding their claim, there are not disputed islands.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If Japan in 1912-1915 didn't see these disputed islands to be part of China or whatever gov't that controlled the socalled China, then why would the foreign minister writes back and forth with the cabinet leaders on how to "take" the island away from China? How do you take something away from somebody when that "thing" didn't belong to that somebody?

You're not even reading the correspondence correctly. If the territories belong to Qing, the foreign minister of Japan at that time would of said so in response to the Interior minister who stated "the Senkaku Islands showed no trace of having been under the control of the Qing Dynasty."

Clearly, the notion is Japan recognized or knew that these disputed island belonged to China. Otherwise, there would be no need for such documentations.

No. It simply means that Japan did conduct due diligence to survey the islands.

So by your own argument, the legal question of these disputed islands were established that they do belonged to China before 1895. The only argument is whether China (PRC or ROC) acquiesced these islands to a US controlled Japan. That is really the key. Since neither the ROC or PRC participated in any bi-lateral or tri-lateral treaties amongs the concerning parties or agreed to any treatises on secession specifically on these islands. The outcome is clear. Japan never had sovereign rights over these islands.

He/she does not make that argument.

Since the nationalization of the islands after the lease expiration, not a single soul posted any evidence of Chinese's effective control or exercising authority prior to Japan's 1895 incorporation.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Apparently not so secret after all.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Abe is desperate; I doubted the credibility of this talk. "Abe has not held formal talks with Chinese and South Korean leaders since taking office last December." The Chinese and Korean don't even want to look at or shake hand with him. Why should China do it now, secretly?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Isn't this the original map? Doesn't look as if Shin had any control to me.

Well, the Wikipedia and Waseda University version is a much well maintained version. And the map does depict the Diaoyu islands as Chinese territory as it is shown in the same color as that of China.

http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru03/ru03_01547/ru03_01547_0002/ru03_01547_0002.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1786年中国往琉球海路图2.jpg

It simply means that Japan did conduct due diligence to survey the islands

The Okinawa governor of that time said otherwise.

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

Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”

In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.

“Surveys of the islands are incomplete” wrote the new Okinawa governor in January of 1892. He requested that a naval ship Kaimon be sent to survey the islands, but ultimately a combination of miscommunication and bad weather made it impossible for the survey to take place.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/19/opinion/global/diaoyu-3/diaoyu-3-blog480.jpg

Letter dated May 12, 1894 affirming that the Meiji government did not repeatedly investigate the disputed islands.

“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.

After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If the talks were supposed to be secret why did the Chinese government disclose them? Because they want to prove that Japan is willing to talk? Guess you can't keep a secret when one side sees an advantage to making it public.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Well, the Wikipedia and Waseda University version is a much well maintained version. And the map does depict the Diaoyu islands as Chinese territory as it is shown in the same color as that of China.

Except that Taiwan is colored in a different color as well. (oops). Not to mention the fact that Taiwan is depicted 1/3 size of Okinawa. Poor dude simply had no clue. But it's all moot since the map is not an official map.

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

Not this crap again.

The correspondence simply proves that the Japanese government were conducting their due diligence to survey the territories in question as to leave no doubt the islands were terra nullius. To put it more simply, if in fact the Japanese government at that time knew that the islands belong to Qing, they would of flat out stated so by the foreign ministry in response to the interior minister memo where it stated "...and showed no particular trace of having been under the control of the Qing Dynasty.."

“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.

And the response from the Interior Ministry states

"based on the testimony of the Navy personnel, "there are no traces of ownership for Uoturi and Kuba" and that ".based on topographical features, they should be part of the Okinawa island chain"

http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/senkaku/teikokuhanto/1894-12-15hibetsu133.html

1 ( +5 / -4 )

I hope this can be resolved. It is now clear to China I think that their policy of bullying is not working.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

mulanOct. 17, 2013 - 02:50AM JST @nigelboy No ned to argue. China discvoered it the first. End of story. Japan use force and trick stole it from China, end of story. >Japan abandoned her caim in 1945, end of story. US doesn't recognize Japan's sovereignty, end of story. You can still lie about it, deny it, but you can occupy it, end of story.

China has no evidence whatsoever of discovery, control or ownership. Proof is that China is unable to take Japan to the ICJ and win legally because they have no evidence. Tell us who exactly Japan used force on to take the Senkakus? What was the battle called? How many Chinese casualties? The islands were never taken by war and excluded from the Potsdam agreement BY THE ALLIES. The US has no say in the sovereignty but has told China that should they try to take them by force the United States will defend them. Therefore China's plan to take them over has failed. It is you who is in complete denial of reality and merely parroting Chinese government propaganda. Even the Chinese government themselves realize they have no case and are conducting secret talks with Japan as this article indicates. End of story for you.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

China's extraterritorial maritime claims are based upon fiction but they are not just against Japan. They are against every maritime neighbor.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

mulan

So Mongolia should control China based on your logic!?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

OssanAmerica Oct. 17, 2013 - 05:33AM JST China has no evidence whatsoever of discovery, control or ownership.

Which isn't to say China doesn't believe the islands were part of its territory, only that the islands were apparently vacant when Japan annexed them in 1895. If the Chinese invade the islands, Japan will likely fight for them, and the U.S. would be dragged into the conflict. China claims the disputed land based on historic use of the islands as navigational aids in the 1400's to 1800's. In addition, the Chinese government links the territory to the 1895 Shimonoseki Peace Treaty that removed Japanese claims to Taiwan and Chinese lands after World War II.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Dear China,

Want to improve your bilateral relations with Japan? Here's one you can try:

Stop your pointless aggravation on the Senkaku's.

With love,

Dan Man

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The SF Treaty went around the question of the ownership Senkaku/Daioyu islands. Although the Taiwanese were not part of the negotiations, they should have urged the incorporation of the islands into the Taipei Treaty. No matter which treaty one looks at, no matter which language was used, the question about Senkaku/Daioyu islands were totally omitted. Only the PRC leader Zhou Enlai contested the legality of the SF treaty in 1951.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@JTDanMan

Noda started all of this and he isn't a Chinese.

By the way, China denied any secret talks with Japan on the issue.

I think the issue will be reshelved and the dispute will be formally recognized.

That is the best solution to both Japan and China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Readers need to understand there is absolutely no evidence of acknowledgement of third party on the owner of those islands.

When Japan mentioned it was incorporated in 1895, show me the official documents from other nations which approve such thing.

When China mentioned it has belonged to them during ancient times, show me then official documents which approve such thing.

Ask yourself how can you claim the car belongs to you? Don't tell me you're the seller, the banker who provide the loan, the government official who check the license and so forth. The car belongs to you as there are multiple individual of different profession who approves it through various documents which includes signature and so forth.

This is why no nations today would intervene as the sovereignty of those islands can only be resolved between Japan and China whether you like it or not. Once Japan and China agrees only then they can forge a document which can be acknowledged by other nations for the verification of the agreement.

As I mentioned countless times, the most likely thing that would affect the current status would be the economic decline or collapse of either China or Japan which we would not know when it might happen.

Secret meetings such as this one has been conducted in Shanghai on October 2012 last year and I think it has been conducted on both sides without us knowing for a long time but do we see any signs of improvement? I'm not surprised the conversation would be "NO! you do this! NO! listen to me, you do that!" during those meetings.

In other words, we would have to see the economic outcome of Japan and China in the upcoming years as I believe it is the only thing that would affect deeply the attitude of those nations

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The west nearly always point their finger at China. The bias is too obvious. This will blur the picture because the west is taking side rather than judging the dispute in a fair manner. Imagine a judge in court being bias himself. Because of the cold war with the Soviet after 1945, the U.S. used Japan, as an ally, to counter balance the Soviet Union. Japan was spared from totally eliminating the militarism of WWII. The Senkaku/Daioyu islands dispute is actually a "left-over" of that war and why is U.S. remaining neutral?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Guru29Oct. 16, 2013 - 11:35PM JST

And the map does depict the Diaoyu islands as Chinese territory as it is shown in the same color as that of China.

The drawer of the map is Hayashi Shihei, who was not a government official but was a private person. He lived in Sendai which is far from the Capital or form Okinawa and had scant knowledge of Okinawa. He was punished by the Shogun government for publishing incorrect maps. His maps does not count as evidence.

mulanOct. 17, 2013 - 08:35AM JST

Noda started all of this and he isn't a Chinese.

All of this started in 1895 when Japan occupied Senkakus. China remained silent all the time. Chinese Premier Zhou remained silent when China Japan Joint Communique was signed in 1972. He said he did not want to talk about Senkakus.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@CH3CHO

Tanaka asked the question because he knew th dispute. Zhou basically told Tanaka to put the relationship of Japan and China first, don't be bothered and distracted by not so important things. Tanaka got it and said "that is sufficient", so both gentlemen moved on.

Today, Japan under Abe needs the same wisdom that Tanaka and Zhou had shown. Put the relationship of Japanese and Chinese people first and don't let small thing block strategic view of freindship between the two great nations.

You can argue this thousand times. In the end, Senkakus/DiaoYu is just a drop of water in the Ocean.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

mulanOct. 17, 2013 - 11:29AM JST

So, you admit that Premier Zhou abandoned Senkakus for the sake of good relationship between China and Japan. PM Tanaka said that was enough, for China had no long any claim to Senkakus.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Looks as if PRC Foreign Affairs is denying earlier reports that there was a secret meeting between PRC and Japan.

http://news.searchina.ne.jp/disp.cgi?y=2013&d=1017&f=politics_1017_002.shtml

They are also accusing Japan of trying to create a false sense that PRC is hastily trying to mend relationship.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Proof is that China is unable to take Japan to the ICJ and win legally because they have no evidence.

Why should China bring the case to the ICJ when it had already been resolved with the signing of various WWII peace treaties/ agreements between Japan and the Allies such as the Potsdam Declaration, San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.?

Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for japan) :

"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."

San Francisco Peace Treaty

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 29 deg. north latitude (that's the Ryukyu islands but excluding the Diaoyu Islands which are located further south between latitude 25 degree 40 minute to 26 degree 00 minute North and longitude 123 degree 25 minute to 124 degree 45 minute East)...

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced to the following agreement made 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 for decolonization as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty)""

So the case is closed as long as Japan will comply with the terms of surrender and the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

On the other hand, if Japan is unwilling to comply with the terms of surrender and the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it should sue the Allies (permanent UNSC members) and many other countries in the world that signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan.

As a start, Japan should nullify the following agreements/ treaties:

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."

1972 China-Japan treaty:

"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."

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Why should China bring the case to the ICJ when it had already been resolved with the signing of various WWII peace treaties/ agreements between Japan and the Allies such as the Potsdam Declaration, San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.?

Because China has no case.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

All of this started in 1895 when Japan occupied Senkakus. China remained silent all the time.

Actually it is Japan that has kept silent all the time. Did Japan make known its intention to invade China and Korea after decades of preparation? Did Japan inform China about its decision to grab these islands from China during the 1894-1895 invasion? Not at all. Japan merely demanded China to cede all islands in the east China Sea, that is Taiwan (further west of the Diaoyu islands) and all its subsidiary islands to Japan after defeating the Chinese navy.

The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty did not mention the Diaoyu Islands too. However, it did determine that Japan must give up its claim on the Ryukyu islands, the long island chain in-between Japan and the Senkaku/ Diaoyu Islands for the US to hand over it to the UN for decolonization. And since the Diaoyu islands are further south to the Ryukyu islands, therefore any logical person would have reached the conclusion that the islands had been returned to Taiwan (ROC) after the war.

And since China was having civil war with Taiwan (ROC), the only way for China to regain the Diaoyu Islands (subsidiary islands of Taiwan) which is further east of Taiwan is to Defeat Taiwan in the civil war.

Furthermore, the Ryukyu military government also kept China in the dark when it took the Diaoyu Islands and incorporated these islands into Ryukyu. This is actually a violation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty which defined the territory of Ryukyu to 29 deg north latitude whereas the Diaoyu Islands are much further south between latitude 25 degree 40 minute to 26 degree 00 minute North and longitude 123 degree 25 minute to 124 degree 45 minute East.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

sfjp330Oct. 17, 2013 - 07:54AM JST "OssanAmerica Oct. 17, 2013 - 05:33AM JST China has no evidence whatsoever of discovery, control or ownership. Which isn't to say China doesn't believe the islands were part of its territory, only that the islands were apparently >vacant when Japan annexed them in 1895.

China is free too believe whatever they want but it's quite meaningless unless supportable in a court of law.

If the Chinese invade the islands, Japan will likely fight for them, and the U.S. would be dragged into the conflict.

You seem to be harping on an alleged "reluctance" of the U.S. to be involved militarily. This view of yours not only ignores the fact that Okinawa, of which the Senkakus is a part, is the largest US military presence in Asia. Your view also contradicts the view held by most anti-American posters that the US is a "war monger".

China claims the disputed land based on historic use of the islands as navigational aids in the 1400's to 1800's. In >addition, the Chinese government links the territory to the 1895 Shimonoseki Peace Treaty that removed Japanese >claims to Taiwan and Chinese lands after World War II.

China can believe and claim whatever they like. But I repeat, unless they can present this at the ICJ it doesn't mean anything.

Rather than arguing the same old same old points, this may provide some at least interesting reading for you.

http://cryptome.org/2013/07/guccifer-cia-senkaku.pdf

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Guru29Oct. 17, 2013 - 08:23PM JST

Why should China bring the case to the ICJ when it had already been resolved with the signing of various WWII peace treaties/ agreements between Japan and the Allies such as the Potsdam Declaration, San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.?

Rather, that is a perfect reason that the case should be brought to ICJ. The meaning of treaties is conclusively determined by ICJ. If China thinks the treaties should mean such and such, it should bring the case to ICJ to make ICJ declare that interpritation of the treaties by China is indeed correct. In addition, by bringing the case to ICJ, China can make Japan admit that the islands are disputed.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If one reads Chicago University professor John Mearsheimer, one would realize the strategic importance in creating an uneasy relationship between China and its neighbors. I have no doubt this is for the benefit of the US, and that it is their plan all along. China and Japan duly came into that game (and India, and Philippines, Vietnam, etc.) The super power is smart and knows what it's doing.

Chinese has been denying that the discussion took place. But it it's true, it would be a good thing. Japan should welcome it and make leak more news about it. It does not look good for Abe that both Chinese and Korean leaders refuse to meet him during his tenure as PM. He would leave behind a very embarrassing legacy.

Japan is an Asian country after all, and cannot play the role of a vassal of the US forever. It's not a long term solution. How can one be sure that 20 years from now the US would not bargain away the interests of Japan in their deals with China, or even Russia. They already did that to Taiwan.

Improving relation with China is a strategic necessary. The more Abe sores the relation, the more work he'll leave to his successor, while the trade between the nations suffer. Given the economic potential, the Japanese side probably suffers more.

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