U.S., Japan press China on South China Sea dispute

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will press China

Didn't China threaten the US to stay out of this, or else? (Or else what?,should be interesting )

Else they dumb US treasuries into the market and not finance American debt, thanks to the Chinese and Japanese the American way of life is kept after Lehman went under. Liquidity was pumped into the markets, a lot of which Chinese state capital to cushion the crisis.

What they had to discuss if the island is already Japanese?

if one reads between the lines it is apparent that Abe has failed to impress AEAN members or mount pressure against China.

The United States says it is neutral but has put pressure on China and other claimants to end the dispute through talks.

Sounds quite familiar! Didn't the US say samething to CN and JP over dispute of east china seas islets? and did it work well? let's wait for a few days and see what happen.

some14someOct. 10, 2013 - 08:01PM JST if one reads between the lines it is apparent that Abe has failed to impress AEAN members or mount pressure against >China.

You are incorrect. The majority of ASEAN nations support the US and Japan position.

@Ossan

What exactly is the US position?

Seems to me that China and the US are saying the same - Resolution of dispute by negotiation.

I believe the US, Japan, Philippines, Viet Nam, et. al., prefer a group approach to negotiation starting with a system to avoid a confrontation that turns violent.

China wants to negotiate with each country individually.

China wants to use it's economic. political and military might and deal with each disputant individually thereby giving China the advantage in all respects. The US and Japan advocate a group response to counter balance that advantage.

In the East and South China Seas, China has engaged in another type of mapmaking that may end up escalating the conflict. It has drawn new territorial markers, or baselines, around the islands and submitted them to the UN. That could lead to a more serious attempt to claim the islands, and broad swaths of valuable ocean around them. By submitting the baselines to the U.N., China is spelling out its claim to the waters, the fish in them and the oil, gas and other minerals beneath them. Legal questions aside, China sees the waters within its baselines as its internal waters under Beijing's administration. That raises the risk of a confrontation in the clear waters around the disputed islands between Japanese coast guard vessels and Chinese fishing boats and law enforcement vessels, and even Taiwanese vessels, all with orders to patrol the area.

WHO ATE ALL THE PIES?

@OssanAmerica

I am sorry. I don't mean that. What I am trying to say is that it is not wise to be involved in others business. You are definitely smart as shown in many of your postings.

Abe is trying hard to get along with China and I believe his good intention. But I don't understand why at the sometime he is so annoying. He should put Japanese interests first and keep his personal view to himself.

Mr. Abe has been dumping Cash and aiding the South East Asian Nations so I am pretty sure he is going to get an enthusiastic support from them regarding the disputed territories with China. Japan has always been good at strategically preparing for conflicts and it's no different here, however this preparation doesn't change the fact that Japan illegally took possession of Senkaku or Daioyu Island from China during Cino-Japan War.

Both countries will be in no win situation. You have to remember that China and Japan has over $345 billion dollars in annual bilateral trade and they have alot to lose if they cannot figure out diplomatically. The Japan's current nationalism rise is more of a preception than a reality. In less than two decades, China will be importing 80 percent of her oil needs, and they will continue to have problems finding new source of energy. China with the energy shortage, will most likely be much more assertive around the East and South China Seas, and around the world, and conflicts will most likely happen unless China improve it's diplomacy.

In the case of China, of course, the U.S. faces far less of a security threat than it did from the Soviet Union. Today, U.S. dwarfs China militarily in both nuclear and conventional forces. We all know that security conflicts continues to create serious tensions between the U.S. and China. However, China is the largest growth market in the world for U.S. goods and services. Trade with China, the U.S. export market has helped U.S. recovery from the financial crisis, and the future improve relations will remain top priority for both countries.

fact that Japan illegally took possession of Senkaku or Daioyu Island from China during Cino-Japan War

There is no credible evidence that China had possession of the islands before that.

You seem to think otherwise.

Prey, do tell.

mulanOct. 11, 2013 - 06:22AM JST @OssanAmerica I am sorry. I don't mean that. What I am trying to say is that it is not wise to be involved in others business. You are >definitely smart as shown in many of your postings.

In order to understand why the U.S. is involved in "others' business" you need to take a good look at U.S. history from WWII onwards, when it broke out of an isolationist mode and became involved in a global war on multiple fronts, and effectively saved it's allies from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Before WWII was even over the polarization between the US and USSR was evident and the Korean War, Vietnam War, the entire Cold War period firmly established an American agenda of spreading democracy. Germany and Japan were success stories, recent wars like Iraq and Afghanistan are still uncertain. Since WWII ended the US has become a global policeman enforcing it's agenda and supporting it's allies. In doing so the US has become the biggest military power on the planet. Natural;ly in doing so it has developed many enemies, but what is for certain is that US actions are in keeping with it's agenda, not to gain territory or natural resources or other "spoils of war". Therefore, to respond to your statement, it is not a question of wisdom or lack thereof which draws the United States into geopolitical issues and disputes.

Abe is trying hard to get along with China and I believe his good intention. But I don't understand why at the sometime >he is so annoying. He should put Japanese interests first and keep his personal view to himself.

I do not think Shinzo Abe is exceptionally annoying, especially when considering that he is a politician, an occupation where being annoying is fairly common. Personally I find Hua Chunying much more annoying, as I think she is trying to singlehandedly start WWIII. http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/hcy/

JTDanManOct. 11, 2013 - 07:04AM JST There is no credible evidence that China had possession of the islands before that.

U.S. not taking a position about the dispute when it returned the islands to Japan, that that somehow validates Chinese or Taiwanese claims.

sfjp330Oct. 11, 2013 - 07:36AM JST JTDanManOct. 11, 2013 - 07:04AM JST There is no credible evidence that China had possession of the islands >before that. U.S. not taking a position about the dispute when it returned the islands to Japan, that that somehow validates >Chinese or Taiwanese claims.

No it doesn't. Not when the US says they will defend it if any country tries to take them by force. Chinese arguments jump between invalidating US positions by denouncing the San Francisco Treaty and validating US positions by focusing on the US not taking a position on sovereignty. So, how is China going to get these islands By force? No. By intimidating Japan into handing them over? No, By going to the ICJ? No. Please tell me how they can accomplish this.

@OssanAmerica

If Japan has the ownership, in 2008 why did China and Japan agreed to jointly explore for oil in waters off the Senkakus, but we know that undertaking was never implemented? Japan didn't need to ask China. This somehow validates Chinese claim.

sfjp330Oct. 11, 2013 - 08:40AM JST @OssanAmerica If Japan has the ownership, in 2008 why did China and Japan agreed to jointly explore for oil in waters off the >Senkakus, but we know that undertaking was never implemented? Japan didn't need to ask China. This somehow >validates Chinese claim.

Please answer the question I posed to you. How is China going to take possession of the Senkakus? Furthermore joint drilling and exploration of the seabed in an area near the Senkakus has nothing to do with the issue of ownership of the islands themselves. Unless you have been ignoring Japanese diplomatic policy towards China since 1972 you should know that Japan has been an overly conscientious neighbor, asking China when they didn't have to. Returning a drunk boat captain when hey didn't have to. Making a government purchase of 3 of the 5 islands to keep Ishihara from building on them and upsetting China, when they didn't have to. China has taken advantage of this practice and I doubt we will ever see it again. Furthermore, you are stretching for reasons to "validate" China's claim when only an ICJ judgement in it's favor would do so. So please, answer my original question.

@OssanAmerica

Japan has a territorial dispute with China and not a party in South China Sea. Abe should excuse himself from any comment in relating to South China Sea dispute. That is diplomatic correct and gentleman's approach. As far as I know, China never does the same thing to Japan.

The golden rule is that One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

Japanese don't want to be seen as narrow minded people, do you agree ?

Vietnam War, the entire Cold War period firmly established an American agenda of spreading democracy.

Peasants Vietcom gurrila with bamboo stick without military trainning defeated West point graduates who had superior and powerful armforce. It was the biggest failure of US postwar adventure. Spreading democracy does not need to use force.

recent wars like Iraq and Afghanistan are still uncertain

It is another humilation of US Arm forces. While they were training the local Arm force, they have been killed by their trainee soliders. Countless road side bombs have weakend Mighty military as vulnerable lambs. Irag war alone costed 1 billion per week and contributed sky rocketting debt. Afgan war was disasspointing unwinnable after decades. Obama decided to withdraw for face and cost saving.

but what is for certain is that US actions are in keeping with it's agenda, not to gain territory or natural resources or other "spoils of war"

It is not entirely true. For example gulf War I was for securing the supply of oil from Kuwait. Saddam Hussein was trained by armed by US for countering Iran back in 1980s. Irag has more oil compare with Iran. If Iran has more oil, US has supported Iran instead of Irag. At the end, both Iran and Irag became US enemies.

So, how is China going to get these islands By force? No. By intimidating Japan into handing them over? No, By going to the ICJ? No. Please tell me how they can accomplish this.

Since 1960s, Taiwan and China ships came and go as they pleased. There were no publicity or media interest. Interestingly no Japanese or Chinese died or injured. That year is 2013. It is obvious that China is not interested in using force. If they want, why do they have to wait for so long? According current Japanese birth rate, it is very hard to sustain Japanese race after a couple of centuries. Japanese are ageing population. Due to very low birth, it will disappear gradually.

Remember PRC waited HK for 100 years. If they wait Senkaku for 1000 years, they will claim their trophy without single drop of blood. According the idea of American Chinese Bruce Lee, there is an art of fighting without fighting. He demonstrated someone to go down to the small boat and sinking the boat in the Enter the dragon. It is the beauty of the art of War without a single drop of blood.

U.S. not taking a position about the dispute when it returned the islands to Japan, that that somehow validates Chinese or Taiwanese claims

First, the US has taken a position. A very strong position. Since you chose to forget, I will remind you:

The islands are included within ANPO and therefore that a defense of the islands by Japan would require the United States to come to Japan's aid.

Yeah, that is a position.

Second, even if the US had no position, that does not in any way alter the incontrovertible fact that China has no credible claim on the islets.

Since you seem to think otherwise, prey tell, what is it? Why does China have any claim. Do tell. If not, then kindly refrain from repeating the Chinese claim has any merit.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is also attending, said the South China Sea dispute was a matter of concern to the entire region.

I will say the Asean countries simply can't be bothered. If it is indeed a big concern to them like what Shinzo Abe said, the Asean leaders probably won't be looking so happily during the 16th Asean-China summit held just two days ago. They even held a Cake cutting ceremony with China with one cake representing one country to commemorate their friendship.

http://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/980w/public/2013/10/10/china_korea_net.jpg

Abe said the dispute had to be resolved in accordance with international law

What international law is Shinzo Abe talking about when the issue 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.?

Potsdam Declaration:

"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 this is the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as described by a disclosed US 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 (UN trusteeship for decolonization as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty)""

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."

@JTDanMan

US has a lot of positions. There is one position that is very well stated that is that US has no position on sovereignty of the disputed Islands between Japan and China.

What is your position on US's no position ?

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

Again, you need to correct that to we as in "U.S. , U.K. and Republic of China".

U.S. and U.K. determined via Treaty of Peace. ROC determined via Treaty of Taipei.

End of discussion.

No matter how many times you or anyone may try to say it ain't so, it is so.

The US has a very clear position.

The US will NOT TOLERATE any attempt to change the status quo through the use of force or intimidation. And, if China tries, the US will come to Japan's defense in accordance with our security treaty with Japan.

In the interests of peace, you would be wise to discontinue the Chinese nationalist fantasy that she can hope to intimidate Japan into submission.

It will not work. Japan will not bend. And the US has Japan's back.

@JTDanMan

Abe should not invoke MDT in the dispute, and reduce military exercises, because they are forms of forces. Abe should instead invoke the treaty with China to settle the dispute in peaceful manner.

I don't believe China intimidates Japan, it is the other way around.

Mulan

You asked what the US position is. I've told you:

The US will NOT TOLERATE any attempt to change the status quo through the use of force or intimidation. The US views this as part of our obligation under ANPO.

I trust this is clear.

JTDanManOct. 12, 2013 - 12:47AM JST The US will NOT TOLERATE any attempt to change the status quo through the use of force or intimidation. And, if China tries, the US will come to Japan's defense in accordance with our security treaty with Japan.

Don't get your hopes up. U.S. will not go into war over a piece of rock. Remember, U.S. has $1.4 trillion Chinese money in the U.S. treasury. Also, sustantial U.S. business ties inside China. U.S. is tired of the wars.

U.S. and U.K. determined via Treaty of Peace. ROC determined via Treaty of Taipei.

Taiwan didn't determine anything regarding the territorial dispute. The Treaty of Taipei doesn't mention the Senkaku/ Diaoyu Islands at all. Not even Ryukyu is mentioned.

By the way, After the ROC lost more than 95% of its territory in 1949, who in this world still recognize any treaty that the ROC (Taiwan) signed on behalf of China?

As for US and UK they too have yet to determine anything regarding the current territorial dispute. However, they did demand that Japan gives up its claim on the Ryukyu islands, the long island chain in-between Kyushu and the Senkaku/ Diaoyu Islands for the US to hand over it to the UN for decolonization according to Article 3 of the 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 (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 as I said, this position of the US in the SFPT is not very different from the original agreement between President Roosevelt and Chiang Kai-shek that was made during the Cairo conference.

Taiwan didn't determine anything regarding the territorial dispute. The Treaty of Taipei doesn't mention the Senkaku/ Diaoyu Islands at all. Not even Ryukyu is mentioned.

Thank you. That's the whole point. The treaty only mentions what the territories Japan renounced. Since they didn't renounce Senkaku nor Ryukyu, it remains.　Hokkaido, Honshu, and Kyushu are not mentioned. Hence, it remains.

Get it through your thick head. ROC never even considered Senkaku's to be part of their territory. http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/senkaku/image/qa_1010_01.jpg

By the way, After the ROC lost more than 95% of its territory in 1949, who in this world still recognize any treaty that the ROC (Taiwan) signed on behalf of China?

Doesn't matter. They signed on behalf of "China" at that time. PRC doesn't get to choose which agreement to honor her predecessor signed. Either you accept all of it or none of it. If PRC doesn't like to honor any of it, they are more than happy to leave the seat of the U.N. Permanent members at any time. In addition, you can basically forget your "Postdam" agreement argument since it does not apply to PRC. Your choice.

As for US and UK they too have yet to determine anything regarding the current territorial dispute. However, they did demand that Japan gives up its claim on the Ryukyu islands, the long island chain in-between Kyushu and the Senkaku/ Diaoyu Islands for the US to hand over it to the UN for decolonization according to Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty:

Read the ENTIRE Article 3.

The treaty only mentions what the territories Japan renounced. Since they didn't renounce Senkaku nor Ryukyu, it remains

That's very poor logic. Who told you Japan must include the names of every tiny island it renounced in WWII in its treaty with Taiwan?

That clearly contradicts with the Potsdam Declaration which says Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine.

So why can't the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) be followed and only islands that are discussed and determined to be part of Japan be recorded down?

Doesn't matter. They signed on behalf of "China" at that time.

Who told you Taiwan could represent China when Taiwan had absolutely no control over China? Even the Japanese admitted that they made a stupid mistake in the 1970s and nullify their treaty with Taiwan when they went to China.

That's very poor logic. Who told you Japan must include the names of every tiny island it renounced in WWII in its treaty with Taiwan?

No. Just a set of islands. Like Penghu, Spratley, and Paracel islands which Japan renounced.

That clearly contradicts with the Potsdam Declaration which says Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine.

"1.We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, ..."

Get over it Guru29

Who told you Taiwan could represent China when Taiwan had absolutely no control over China? Even the Japanese admitted that they made a stupid mistake in the 1970s and nullify their treaty with Taiwan when they went to China.

You mean Republic of China who is the member of the U.N. at that time, right?

Sorry PRC. If you could of convinced the U.N. before, they would of had a shot in 1951.

But wait.....

"The Ryukyu Islands lie scattered on the sea between the Northeast of Taiwan of our State (note: China; same in the following text) 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. Each of them consists of a lot of small and large islands and there are more than 50 islands with names and about 400 islands without names. Overall they cover 4,670 square kilometers. The largest of them is the Okinawa Island in the Okinawa Islands, which covers 1,211 square kilometers. The second largest is the Amami Oshima Island in the Oshima Islands (the Amami Islands), which covers 730 square kilometers. The Ryukyu Islands stretch over 1,000 kilometers, inside of which is our East China Sea (the East Sea in Chinese) and outside of which is the high seas of the Pacific Ocean"

Peoples Daily January of 1953.

Then again, wouldn't have made a difference anyways. LOL.

PRC refuses to recognize the SF and Taipei Tready, the only pillar for China / mainland claim are the Japanese Surrender Terms of 1945. China was a signatory. Therefore, the Surrender Terms are legally binding for the Japanese.

PRC refuses to recognize the SF and Taipei Tready, the only pillar for China / mainland claim are the Japanese Surrender Terms of 1945. China was a signatory. Therefore, the Surrender Terms are legally binding for the Japanese.

Which means Spratley, Paracel, and Taiwan still belongs to Japan.

PRC was not a signatory so they can't even claim the Potsdam.

sfjp330Oct. 12, 2013 - 03:43AM JST "JTDanManOct. 12, 2013 - 12:47AM JST The US will NOT TOLERATE any attempt to change the status quo through the use of force or intimidation. And, if China tries, the US will come to Japan's defense in accordance with our security treaty with Japan.

Don't get your hopes up. U.S. will not go into war over a piece of rock. Remember, U.S. has $1.4 trillion Chinese >money in the U.S. treasury. Also, sustantial U.S. business ties inside China. U.S. is tired of the wars.

You view is in direct contradiction to the PRC government which recognizes that the US will defend the Senkakus under Article 5 of the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty. The Chinese government has not allowed the PLAN to send it's naval vessels to the Senkakus for fear of a U.S. response. This is a fact and undeniable evidence that China does not doubt the U.S., position. And most us know that the issue is more than just "rocks",

@OssanAmerica

I realize there is article 5. I repeat, U.S. will not go into war over a piece of rock.

sfjp330Oct. 12, 2013 - 08:28AM JST @OssanAmerica I realize there is article 5. I repeat, U.S. will not go into war over a piece of rock.

I repeat the Senkakus are NOT a "piece of rock". Right now China is willing to wreck their image of a "peaceful rise" and allow themselves to be considered the biggest threat in Asia and the US-Japan-Australian alliance. Do you honestly think they are willing to do tis for a "piece of rock"? Since 2003 the PLA Navy has declared their intent to challenge the US Navy by becoming a blue water navy, and to do so they needed to break the island chains. The Senkakus are in the first island chain. The strategic value of the Senkakus is not lost to either China or the United States, neither considers it a "piece of rock". And in this light perhaps you can appreciate that the United States most certainly means it when they say they will not let China take it.

What does Potsdam Conference has anything to do with PRC or ROC's position on territory reclamation from Japan? Potsdam only paved way (from Yalta) to SF's treaty as a precedent on what went on in Europe concerning mainly about Germany. It has no bearing on SF or Diaoyu/Senkaku or any SCS disputes.

People's Daily was traditional Chinese, not simplified Chinese. And if you paid attention to the date January 8,1953, you'll know that's the exact same date in US January 7, 1953 that US had developed the H bomb. And 1952-1953 was at the height of the Korean conflicts.

The ROC (Taiwan) was so relieved and happy that the PRC got dragged on in Koreas. ROC's position at the time was absolute obedience to Eisenhower, well the transition from Truman to DDE was really not a smooth one due to the situation in NK and ROC's CKS was so scared that DDE will forfeit Taiwan in favor or securing the KP conflict that it had to do everything in its power to get on US's good side. Including offering to send over 30k soldiers to fight against the PRC but was rejected. If it wasn't for the NK incursion to SK, Taiwan would've fell to PRC already and PRC might go after Ryukyu since it never recognized it as part of Japan's territory.

Meaning, the Korean War saved Japan and Taiwan. These Diaoyu/Senkakus are meaningless if PRC took Taiwan. ROC understood that clearly. Articles like that are a reflection of the political situation of ROC in that time. Just right after the Korean war, it was business as usual on claiming Diaoyu/Senkakus as part of ROC's territory, by the same exact paper. No one pays attention to those so called newspapers of that time. IN many ways, ROC was more of a dictatorship and held more censorship than the PRC during those periods. If anyone knows that part of history, anyone can tell you CSK was a looneytoon who flips flops to the point that US simply got sick of his antics.

Paper or no paper, there is zero authority about that article. Much like those Asahi Shimban puff pieces during WWII. Nothing to see there.

Nigelboy, don't try to sneak that in here. People are watching.

Ossan,

PLAN and PLANF had constantly patrolled the islands. They have used marine surveillance planes as well as airforce surveillance planes to patrol the vicinity of the the islands and directly over the islands. And since Japan is continuing allowing the PLA and Chinese Surveillance Ships (civilians) to patrol the waters, Japan had already lost its argument and stance on there is no dispute. If you don't take legal action or military action against China when they constantly, repeatedly, blatantly, open and notoriously "trespass" to your territory, then you are as good as gone. There is zero chance Japan can win in any international forum to suggest that there isn't a dispute under these circumstances. Evidently, these exact actions and reactions are the exact evidence China needs to show for a dispute. Japan is in a no-win situation. It would've been better off if it didn't try to illegal buy the ownership of these islands where it didn't legally have a legal owner. That way, China won't be forced to move all in and push you to a corner where there is no return. Sometimes, the grey area is the safest area for all sides. But some idiotic politicians had to go poke the dragon at Japan's worst times. If you do this a couple of decades earlier, Japan actually might win. Now, China and specifically the PLA ain't scare of Japan or the US in the region. They have credible deterrence and first strike capabilities. Japan can't bluff them anymore. The US learned of this during the Spy Plane incident. It was crystal clear that China is not messing around and that occurred over international waters. What makes you think US will enter into a disputed water against China? Some security pack on a piece of paper that doesn't clearly define the exact sovereign rights of these territories? Who are you kidding here?

At the end of the day and when push comes to shoves, the majority of Americans will not support military action against China (and possibly Russia, North Korea and Pakistan) in aide of Japan. Not happening guys. You will get our verbal support, maybe even some sort of short-term embargo such as ones that happened during the Tiananmen Massacre. But that's as far as we go. You're on your own.

Which means Spratley, Paracel, and Taiwan still belongs to Japan.

Yes, the Japanese fascists do have the delusion that as long as the Japanese remain a good boy and help in Americans' global hegemony, Uncle Sam will restore all territories that Japan lost to the Allies in WWII to Japan. This is nothing but delusion.

PRC was not a signatory so they can't even claim the Potsdam.

Pretending that you don't know that the PRC is the legal successor of China and Russia is the legal successor of Soviet Union won't help. You know why the US government did not invite its ally Taiwan (ROC) to San Francisco to sign the Peace Treaty on behalf of China after the ROC lost more than 95% of its territories by 1949? Obviously they did not want to make a fool of themselves unlike some Japanese fascists who claim that Taiwan is the legal government of China to this day.

the US will defend the Senkakus under Article 5 of the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty

Going 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 is a violation of those peace treaties/ agreements. I don't think the Americans will want to abolish all those WWII peace treaties/ agreements and throw away their WWII legacy just to help the Japanese to expand.

Yes, the Japanese fascists do have the delusion that as long as the Japanese remain a good boy and help in Americans' global hegemony, Uncle Sam will restore all territories that Japan lost to the Allies in WWII to Japan. This is nothing but delusion.

I'm merely responding to the consequences of ignoring the Peace Treaty.

Pretending that you don't know that the PRC is the legal successor of China and Russia is the legal successor of Soviet Union won't help. You know why the US government did not invite its ally Taiwan (ROC) to San Francisco to sign the Peace Treaty on behalf of China after the ROC lost more than 95% of its territories by 1949? Obviously they did not want to make a fool of themselves unlike some Japanese fascists who claim that Taiwan is the legal government of China to this day.

Like I said, PRC should of convinced the U.N. Members beforehand. It didn't. Stoping whining.

Highball7,

What on earth are you rambling about?

Guru29Oct. 12, 2013 - 10:39PM JST Yes, the Japanese fascists

In Japan the "fascists" are a small bunch of right wing nationalists who annoy everyone in their black trucks and loudspeakers, exercising (unfortunately) their right to free speech. In China the "fascists" are the CCP government itself and the PLA bent on military and territorial expansion. A country where free speech is not guaranteed bercause China is an authoritarian one-partv dictatorship, the closest thing to a "fascist" country you can get.

Going to war with its WWII ally, China

The PRC (CHina) has never been our ally. PRC was established by the CCP who fought OUR ALLY ROC and chased them off to Taiwan. China sent 250,000 troops to the Korean peninsula to kill Americans and other UN troops. To call China a US ally is sheer psychosis,