COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
politics

U.S., Japan hold senior defense talks with focus on China

41 Comments

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

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said Thursday that China was "seriously concerned" about Japanese media reports saying Japan and the U.S. were updating their military defense plans involving the islands.

Actually it's the United States and Japan that should be seriously concerned about Chinese escalation over the Senkaku islands issue. The Chinese have a history of militarizing islands they seize. They constructed a radar dome on Subi Reef. They built a 2,700-metre runway on Woody Island. With all the saber rattling China has engaged in recently, why shouldn't the United States assume that China might attempt a takeover of the Senkaku islands by force. The United States doesn't want a Chinese airbase on Uotsuri Island with fifth generation fighters threatening their bases in Okinawa. Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you wish for peace, prepare for war.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

....is hosting Japan's most senior uniformed officer for talks on regional security.

a kind of Retirement Farewell party. here's why : Asked whether Locklear and Iwasaki would discuss such plans, Hudson said the U.S. doesnt take sides in territorial disputes and encourages all parties to find a peaceful resolution.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Not only Japan! The USA too!!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

House Atreides@ I think its the American regime that has a history of instigating violence in other countires by playing both sides to their benefit. Japan needs to be aware of this and stop American insight of violence in the Pacific. The Obama regime needs war to survive, now the Middle East is done, its time to mess up Asia.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

1.It is impossible that These islets had no onwer before 1895, even the South Pole had been explored at that time, how can these islands left untouched? Besides, China has provided the evidence that these islands had been explored.

2.It is normal Even China had not claimed on these islands , because they are too small to have the need to make the claim. The need is only come when Japan wanted to possess them. Few country named or claimed on every single islets arround them, even Japan just claimed hundreds of islets last year, does this means these islets that claimed last year could be claimed by other nations ? you may say of course not, so why the same logic can't be these disputes islands?

3.Japanese widely believe that these islands were handed over to them in the San Francisco peace treaty. But what kind of treaty it is? these treaties were just for cold war, and extremely not fair, how could the treaty makers handed over other nation's territory to Japan that not belonged to them? why they just handed over them selves territories to Japan? What kind of absurd thing can overtake this? This is why China will not take these disputes to the international court, because even now those counties are still the main numbers there, who can believe them will do the fair thing this time?

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

4.Japan believe the fact that the US handed over these islands to Japan. but actually, the US can never be the onwer of these islands, not now, not then, It doesn't matter how many US people died there, actually even the whole American people died there, it is illegal to take the islands by the US, let alone handed them to Japan. Here is an potential logic that most Japanese beleve that the US won the war so they took the island and changed the onwer of the islands to the US. Here hides two question: a). At that time, these islands were not belong to Japan. b). the theory come to legal : The onwer of the territory can be change by winning a war. If the onwer of territories can be changed by war and all the nations believe this, where will the peace reside in? every nation can trigger wars to take territories from others.

5.China never want to claim ALL the territories in Asia, let alone the whole world. But we can hear of these kinds of words every day from the mouth of Japanese. How radical and unreasonable is that? All the territories that China is claiming now are those belong to China before and are token by others, nothing more, Can you provide an instance against this? If you can't , just shut up! Actually it is Japanese want to claim territories that may not belong to Japan with at least three counties.

I know my opinions will be opposed by many people, but before doing that provide your reasonable reason here. and I am always delighted to discuss this with you reasonablly. Another request, dont be stubborn be reasonable.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

The Chinese have no reason to be concerned about this if they do not intend to take the islands by force.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

lol. Hong Lei - another clueless CCP 'Foreign Ministry spokesman.'

“Diaoyu is an inherent part of Chinese territory,” Hong said. Internationally accepted agreements say they aren't, Spokesman Hong. You simply can't impose CCP beliefs upon developed nations like you do your own citizens. Argue you case to an international tribunal.

The only 'serious concern' the CCP has is that neither Japan or the US (or anyone else) are kowtowing to their untested assertions regarding the Senkakus, or retreating from their sabre-rattling.

Welcome to the big league, Mr Hong.

@IRobin - When the CCP claims the entire South China Sea as its own (probably because the word 'China' is in the name lol), of course outsiders are going to be extremely skeptical of their claims (land grabs) over anything else.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@SecularBeast,

Precisely, only the eight segments belong to China, and this had come to the agreements before.

Here I have a query for you, when talk about the disputs islets with Japan, would you please stop involving other countries, becasue that has nothing to help to prove that Japan had stolen these islands.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

China can say whatever they want, but it does not make it so. The Sengoku Islands are part of Japan. End of story. Grow up and act like a mature nation, not a hooligan bully.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@CrisGerSan,

Even with a great speaker to exclaim to the whole world, if you can not provide credible reasons, your opinions only will be considered as unreasonable and stubborn.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

IRobin, educate yourself on the history of the matter - discovery, maps, possession etc. of the islands and base your comments on facts not on assumptions.

For one thing, you say that

Even China had not claimed on these islands , because they are too small to have the need to make the claim. The need is only come when Japan wanted to possess them.

In fact, China started claiming them not when they were given to Japan to administer but quite later on - it "waited" until it was discovered that there are big deposits of natural resourses there (check the exact facts for yourself)

Oh, and this:

even Japan just claimed hundreds of islets last year

?????

For your Information, Japan has territorial disputes over the Senkakus, Takeshima and the islands northeast of Hokkaido. However you count it, the disputes have been there for years and the number of islands is nowhere near 100, let alone hundreds.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@JaneM,

That's not true that until there are resources China began to claim on them. Just as I had said upper, if Japan did not occupy them from China, China will no need to claim on them.

For your second question, you misunderstood my opinions, the hundreds islets that are not disputes islets mostly. Indeed you are telling the truth: the number of the first bunch of islets are 39, but 6852 total left, and 421 inhabit islets. Here I just want to say even these islets were not been named they are belong to Japan without doubts. Just like the Diaoyu/Senkaku belong to China.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

@JaneM,

Soryy for the wrong spelling : inhabit should be uninhabited.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

IRobin stated: It is normal Even China had not claimed on these islands , because they are too small to have the need to make the claim. The need is only come when Japan wanted to possess them.

Back in 1950, not only did China not claim the Senkaku islands, China stated that the Senkaku islands were a part of the Yaeyama islands.

The Ryukyus "consist of three parts--northern, central, and southern. The central part comprises the Okinawa islands, whereas the southern part comprises the Miyako islands and the Yaeyama islands (Sento islets)."

China only began claiming that the islands belonged to them in 1971 after a U.N. commission reported that oil deposits might lie beneath the waters surrounding the Senkaku islands.

IRobin stated: China never want to claim ALL the territories in Asia, let alone the whole world.

Well it's not for a lack of trying. China has already taken East Turkestan and Tibet by force. They attacked the Russians on Damansky Island in 1969 but were repelled. They tried to take the northern part of Vietnam in 1979 but suffered huge casualties and were kicked out. Now the Chinese have set their sights southward, engaging in increasingly hostile acts with not only Japan but the Philippines and Vietnam.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

China only began claiming that the islands belonged to them in 1971 after a U.N. commission reported that oil deposits might lie beneath the waters surrounding the Senkaku islands.

"The plane! The plane!"

"Welcome to Han-tasy Island..."

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@House Atreides,

Actually, China and some other nations refuse to attend to the treaty that the US scheduled to set opposition of the bully delivery. was that a kind of claim? and here "China" as you mentioned, are you point at the Taiwan government ? Which as well known that can not represent the whole China.

China only began claiming that in 1971, this is not truth.

Tibet belonged to China for thounsand years, it is more old than Okinawa to Japan. How about Okinawa? The war with Russians was just self-defence. The Russian wanted to teach China a lession for not follow them. This Damansky Island is in Heilongjiang province which is part of China.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

@House Atreides,

China never wanted to take the northern part of Vietnam. As a matter of fact, China won the war but took no territory.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Oh, My god!

Everything can be distorted without clarification.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@House Atreides,

There is no East Turkestan but terrorists. The war between Vietnam was because Vietnam wanted to annex her neighbor and disturb the border of China.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Let their be peace on all sides and Declair the Zone a Shared one of National Ecnomic Importance Then share each other Mining And drilling costs and in turn trade. Betwen each other.We dont Want War,s all the time It is Sensless loss of life and Property.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

CINCPAC Fleet - Talk is Cheap Man...It's time for Action!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Not long ago Abe talked about "proud Japan", that means Japan'll take independent diplomatic strategy and don't need foreign troops to stay in Japan...etc. but just now JP begs the help from US force for some plan to balance China. which one is real JP policy? You've to make decision to choose your way: one is difficult but proud and independent way while the other one is safe and comfortable but restrained. you simply can't take both! Do you like the song: "do you hear the people sing; singing the song of angry men; it is the music of people who will not be slaves again..." It says you need to sacrifice to become free! that's what JP should think and make decision!

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

yosunMar. 22, 2013 - 09:11PM JST just now JP begs the help from US force for some plan to balance China.

Your comment makes no sense. The article states;

"The top U.S. military commander in the Pacific is hosting Japan’s most senior uniformed officer for talks on regional security"

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Still, The United States of A will prevail if talking about WAR. That's what they are good for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmericaMar. 22, 2013 - yosunMar. 22, 2013 - 09:11PM JST just now JP begs the help from US force for some plan to balance China. Your comment makes no sense. The article states; "The top U.S. military commander in the Pacific is hosting Japan’s most senior uniformed officer for talks on regional security"

LOL~ I believe you know my point! I don't know any other "proud country" need another country to watch his regional security, even though his local people(Okinawan... etc.) sacrifice a lot! It's nothing to do with china or japan or any countries, I just mean a country need to put up with something so as to stand up in the world!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

yosunMar. 23, 2013 - 12:29AM JST "OssanAmericaMar. 22, 2013 - yosunMar. 22, 2013 - 09:11PM JST just now JP begs the help from US force for some plan to balance China. Your comment makes no sense. The article states; "The top U.S. military commander in the Pacific is hosting Japan’s most senior uniformed officer for talks on regional security"

LOL~ I believe you know my point! I don't know any other "proud country" need another country to watch his regional >security, even though his local people(Okinawan... etc.) sacrifice a lot! It's nothing to do with china or japan or any >countries, I just mean a country need to put up with something so as to stand up in the world!

Every nation around the world that hosts U.S. forces are "proud" countries. And unfortunately every one them has problems to varying degrees. But that is a trade off that every host nation must choose.

I just mean a country need to put up with something so as to stand up in the world!"

I agree, China needs to put up with the sovereign territorial rights of all of it's neighbors.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@IRobin Your distorted sino-centric views only add to the evidence of why China has so many disputes in the region.

Just look at a map of territorial claims for the South China Sea. China's claim runs down the Vietnam coastline to the 200 mile economic zone of Indonesia, along the coast of East Malaysia and then up the coast of the Philippines!

Notwithstanding China's imperial history - it does take a lot of chutzpa in the modern era to try to claim all of that territory considering how far mainland China is from the disputed waters & how close the other countries are.

Furthermore, regarding China's invasion of Vietnam in 1979 ostensibly "to teach the Vietnamese a lesson" for Vietnam's invasion of China's ally ( the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia/Kampuchea), the Chinese took heavy casualties - declared the way open to Ha Noi (despite hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese forces in reserve) and withdrew - destroying or stealing anything of value as they left.

Not exactly China's proudest moment in international relations, but a telling cautionary historical note for its neighbors today.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I wonder what's the REAL intention for U.S to help Japan.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The real intention as I would see it is to limit China's growing naval and air power in the region. US is not the aggressor as some suggest on this thread. Yes, USA has made mistakes, Iraq comes to my mind as it did in 2003. Those islands are a strategic asset. No doubt China is more demanding now than some years ago....China was no threat to the region then. As their military strengthens so does China's arrogance.

Should all nation redraw our national borders to ancient or recent historical boundaries? The pro China posters in this thread think so. Let's see....Eastern Europe will be a mess. SE Asia-ditto! Soviet Union? Should we restore that? And yes, All immigrants into North and South America must return to their former nations. Shall I continue?

What is China up to in Africa? Certainly not investing for the African Continent's benefit.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

MarkGMar. 23, 2013 - 06:24AM JST The real intention as I would see it is to limit China's growing naval and air power in the region. US is not the aggressor as some suggest on this thread.

I don't see containment as real answer. As their economy growns, China has right to grow their defense accordingly. There really is only one real measurement for Chinese Navy. Its ability to win against its likely rival of Japan or U.S. Part of determining the quality of a Chinese Navy depends upon its technology, but a substantial part is actual experience. China's Navy has little actual war-fighting experience, even in the past. This has substantially limited the number of individuals within the officers capable of effective operations in the modern military engagements. The Chinese Navy may have new technology and be building toward superiority, but faces off against Japan or U.S. Navy with many decades of experience in combat might end up in embarrasement. The reality is lack of combat experience significantly limits China's naval capability.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

IRobin stated: and here "China" as you mentioned, are you point at the Taiwan government ? Which as well known that can not represent the whole China.

I am referring to the PRC, the same country that publishes The People's Daily. The official Chinese position in 1950 was that the Senkaku islands belonged to Okinawa. An article published by The People's Daily on January 8, 1953 titled "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation" stated:

"The Ryukyu Islands lie scattered on the sea between the Northeast of Taiwan of China and the Southwest of Kyushu, Japan. They consist of 7 groups of islands; the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa Islands, the Oshima Islands, the Tokara Islands and the Osumi Islands."

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@IRobin

I have already included a lot of information the last time on the same issue. You never considered another possibility? You (or today's China) blindly believe that Senkaku belongs to China, ignoring all the laws. Even if your historical ideas were true, still Senkaku has been Japan's. For more than 100 years China did nothing after Japan registered it in 1895 , even if China were the owner, China has lost it. To begin with, China never owned the islands. If you like history, In 1617 Aug record of (Ming)China then, The official political record of Ming clearly stated that the area is not owned by Ming. In 1561, China admitted the islands are part of Ryukyu which is today's Okinawa. (But until 1895, it was not offically recognized as Okinawa in Internatinal law.)

But it makes no difference. Based on the law, These 5 islands known as Senkaku today were recognized as TERRA NULLIUS by the international law in 1895 when Japan registered as Okinawa officially. Since then, Japan has been governing the islands since 1895.Except between the end of WWII to 1972 while America ruled there.Then that was returned to the original owner based on San Fransico treaty articl 3.

You can express anything you want, but for the sake of a more productive discussion, please let us know that how you fit or how China's claim fits in the law today.

One more time I will put the case here.I have nothing personal against China or you.

The judicial precedent in an international law. Island of Pal mas Case.

1)The title by geographical approachability does not have a meaning in the international law.

2) Discovery itself is immature origin of rights to obtain a sovereignty in international law which is inchoate title.

3) When a foreign country begins to use realistic sovereignty and a discovery country does not protest, the title which uses sovereignty is only larger than the title of discovery.

China,and you must take these 3 things in consideration to think more objectively. Then reply here if you have any logic not emotionally how you feel. If emotion and subjective thought without any evidence, it will take us no where but a war. That we must avoid. Any way, what China or you think would not produce the world map. But the law. This is the 21 century. No one wants to have a war any more. If you really think China is right, will you suggest to China that instead of sending the military ships and planes to Japan territory, sue Japan at the ICJ.

Because what you and China are saying today go against the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951.Saying Senkaku is China means challenging the treaty. The article 3 in the treaty indicates that Senkaku is Japan.

If anyone thinks it finds some error in the treaty, the law exists for that reason, basically it saying that -When it finds an error or asserts the invalidity of a treaty, the announcement to the country directly concerned is required by the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties article 65-.

However, no government or any nation have filed a complaint or made an announcement of error invalidity of the treaty until today as of today March 22nd. 2013.

As far as japan is concerned, There is no issue about Senkaku. But if China does this lawful way, Japan will not be able to keep that status. Japan must get involved. Then the world include China will know who is the real owner of Senkaku. A war is not the way to solve China's problem.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Don't be ridiculous. You're just China, barely out of 5000 years of poverty on an agrarian lifestyle that is the Chinese character. You're now living on the capitalist fumes of our global economy...and you have become addicted to the Western model.

A political upheaval is taking place, as the PRC is slowly being dissolved into six separate nations better equipped to prosper in the 21st century than this ungovernable behemoth that tries to be all things to all men. You have polluted China. You have laid waste to Chinese resources. You have ruined your relations with neighboring countries.

We welcome the three new nations of Tibet, Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang from the PRC's borderlands. We welcome the three new nations which the Han Chinese are now in the process of forming, based on the cultural watersheds of your three principal rivers. This is the future for peace and prosperity across the lands that were once called the PRC.

Fortunately for you, you have far-seeing businessmen, municipal officials and dissident PLA officers who recognize that your six new nations are far better positioned to compete in the global economy than the old PRC. If not for these visionaries in your midst, we would have no other solution than to shut you back down to dung carts and dung stoves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

House AtreidesMar. 23, 2013 - I am referring to the PRC, the same country that publishes The People's Daily. The official Chinese position in 1950 was that the Senkaku islands belonged to Okinawa. An article published by The People's Daily on January 8, 1953 titled "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation"

The Diaoyu/Senkaku belongs to Taiwan(ROC) due to "Taipei treaty" signed by Taiwan and Japan. Any ignorant journalist in People's daily of China or even any PRC commie can't present Taiwan(ROC) to say anything! I'm writing this not trying to persuade you but you should know you can NEVER persuade me!

Actually for the time being there're not any fishing ship, either from JP or TW or CN, can work around the isles. So you could know that dispute only caused nobody actually own it. Even JP coast guard request JP fishing boats don't sail into 24 km within the isles since February. So I still think the only way is to sit down and peacefully solve the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Chumkun,

The time that recorded the Diaoyu/Senkaku is from 1372. And in the year 1534, the territories had been defined according the guaidence . Why it became no owner in 1617?

all the evidences are valid after 1895, because Japan brought China on her knees. all the evidences at these periods and unfair.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@IRobin

What kind of document are you talking about? What is the GYAIDENCE? I can not get anything from what you are saying here.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@IRobin,

Did you read my comment and question? There is no answer in your reply. What you said here make no differences. If your saying decide any territorial issue, the law will be unnecessary but only the size and power will dominate the world. Please read my question and comment one more time and reply. If you had understood my question, you would not have replied the way you did this time.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Japan and Us must be far off the South China Sea ,including underwaters explorations . The world need peace not provocations .

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Chamkun,

I had read all your questions before.

You are highlighting that if the territory was discovered by other's by can't control it , and abtained some international law, the territory would lost and belong to the controller.

This is absurd. herein I will tell you why.

the international laws here you mentioned are invalid, they are the procedure of robbery. I need you remember this, because I stated this many times.

These islets as you admit, China found them first, then they were token by Japan and under the control of Japan. and got the unfair law as mentioned upper. if basis on these evidences, these islets will be Japanese, China will probably do the same as Japan did before to reclaim these islets. And China is keep doing so to obtain the control, to gain the support of international laws just as Japanese had done, because time is always moveing on.

again, stop mentioning that international law, because at least China did not attend that meeting.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Chamkun,

Just a remainder,

If you think about this in a neutral way, you will find that, all the evidences that Japan possesses, so doese China except the unfair international law.

As you stated that Okinawa govern these islets in the history, China did also in some period. 2.Japan is in charge of these islets, so is China now. 3.You said for more than 100 years China did noting, So from now on China will do something. (Actully, it is not true that China did nothing) 4.Finally, it down to the international law as you mentened again and again, the San Francisco Peace Treaty is not a fair treaty, lots of countries refused to attend it, even China.
0 ( +0 / -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