politics

U.S. position on island dispute a betrayal: China

80 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

80 Comments
Login to comment

Chinese chess is very duplicitous. Little by little, this monster that we created in the 1970's by "opening up" China is forging an insane case for Chinese sovereignty over the world. This latest gambit makes Japan vulnerable to a simple pawn move by calling the sovereignty of Japanese islands into question. So why is Japan responding to such a ludicrous suggestion? Don't give up an inch.

Stay the course. We have an increased US military presence in the region to ensure your security. We have launched a ‘strategic dialogue’ with Vietnam to bring more pressure on China. We have secured a ‘comprehensive partnership’ with Indonesia that guarantees military and economic strength against any possibility of Chinese regional hegemony. We are launching new defense ties with Cambodia and the Philippines to hold China in check. We are strengthening existing security relationships with India, South Korea, and Singapore to ensure peace in our time and a Co-Prosperity Sphere. This is the foundation upon which we had set Abe to work in his ASEAN tour, solidifying Japanese predominance in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, before we would see him in Washington. Stay the course, Japan.

What else are we doing to contain Chinese aggression? We have deployed more forces to Guam for rapid offense and defense, reached a better understanding with the government of Japan about the use of force during crises (which Abe will finalize by institutionalizing a re-interpretation of your pacifist constitution), increased our surveillance and patrolling along China’s vast coasts (which we do within China's EEZ without confrontation or argument), continue selling more arms and advance defensive systems to Taiwan to deter Beijing from using coercive means, and routinely engage in classified efforts to counter China’s missile threat to US warships.

So now, if ruling groups in Beijing continue to act on the notion that the Chinese don’t need the industrial democracies of the US, EU and Japan by simply imposing an imperial agenda upon their neighbors while expecting its military assertiveness to be treated as national justice, then we'll shut China down. Just as Deng "opened up" China to our influence, we will take it back down to dung carts and dung stoves...without ever having to fire a shot in anger.

12 ( +25 / -13 )

China x Japan x USA: This is how World War III could start.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Absolutely... The U.S. isn't going to shed a drop of Blood over Japan's Trumped up war with China, over Islands THAT ARE NOT INTEGRAL parts of Japan, nor historically have they ever rightfully belonged to Japan...

Even though I am a big Obama supported, I fault his administration for leading Japan on, and empowering them to act more aggressively (but I doubt the Bush administration would have done any better, probably worse, probably would have started a war already...)

The U.S. needs to clarify it's position to Japan, especially Hillary who's never served a day in Uniform, telling Japan American Troops are going to help defend some remote, desolate atoll, 12-Hundred Plus Miles from Tokyo..

You Silly Japan... Stop starting wars...

-28 ( +8 / -36 )

But in a commentary piece, the official Chinese news agency Xinhua criticized Washington’s position, saying it “cast doubts on U.S. credibility as a responsible power in the region.”

Like China has any credibility at all in the first place? Look at how it double-talks and treats it's own neighbors, like a bully who needs to be taken down a few pegs.

You know, this article could also sound like the cries of a child who got their fingers burnt for touching something they were warned not to in the first place.

15 ( +22 / -7 )

china4sailor"You Silly Japan... Stop starting wars..."China claims most of the South China Sea, including waters close to the shores of its neighbours.In April, Chinese patrol vessels prevented the Philippine Navy from arresting a group of Chinese fishermen at the Scarborough Shoal, which is close to the main Philippine island of Luzon.Manila says China has continued to station patrol vessels in the area even after the Philippines withdrew its vessels and called for a peaceful resolution to the dispute according to international law.....why do china always say they are being aggravated when they are the one who is the aggressor?you greedy china..stop starting wars...

20 ( +27 / -7 )

@ LostinNagoya.

Don't forget that Britain is coming back as a security player in Asia, simply because China has stepped up to the brink of global war by its aggressive posture on the Senkaku issue. On January 18th, British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond and Foreign Secretary William Hague arrived in Perth, Western Australia, to talk to their Australian counterparts about – among other things – how these two nations will support each other’s security concerns in the Asian century.

And it is not only Australia that seems comfortable with seeing a bit more of the Union Jack West of Suez. Curiously, Japan's new prime minister recently invited, “Britain and France to stage a comeback in terms of participating in strengthening Asia’s security.” According to Abe, “The sea-faring democracies in Japan’s part of the world would be much better off with their renewed presence.” With France comes the European Union in stages. This is global war that China has instigated. Let me correct your calculations: China vs Japan/USA/Britain/Australia/France/European Union/ASEAN.

However, a war unfolding in the Asia-Pacific region would most likely be fought at sea and in the air, which may not require the US to act since Japan is highly capable in these two areas, in fact, far more advanced than China which will take another generation to catch up to Japanese capabilities. While Japan may want to deal with Chinese aggression on its own, even if only to demonstrate its dominance in such an arena, the US is committed and determined to act with overwhelming force in the protection of the islands of Japan against any invasion.

If there's any doubt, let it be known we're very happy with PM Abe, and we welcome him to Washington. Just as we "opened up" China with Deng, we can "close it down" at will.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Chin4Sailor

You Silly Japan... Stop starting wars...

Japan are not starting a war at all. Japan legally administers and controls those islands - they don't have to just give them up because China says so. The Chinese are clearly the ones who are wratcheting up the tension in a game of belligerence and brinkmanship by continually sending their boats and planes to the islands whilst sabre rattling and telling their population to prepare for war.

And because Japan legally controls that territory, the US is obliged to honor the treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security that is 52 years old. Mrs Clinton was absolutely right to acknowledge that. If China does something stupid, the US can't be neutral, and it is completely stupid for the Chinese to think the US will just sit quietly to the side whilst China takes Japanese territory by force.

This mess is China's doing. They are responsible for it and it doesn't matter how much they try to point the finger at Japan, they are clearly the protagonist.

26 ( +28 / -2 )

Yeah. Dogs always bark. They see it coming and they cannot stop it

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

China has stepped up to the brink of global war by its aggressive posture on the Senkaku issue.

No, this is wrong. China for all it's braying and whining here isn't looking to start a war, it's just playing games as usual to see how far they can push everyone's buttons.

Only thing is that the bigger bully on the block told them to watch their step and now China's pride is hurt.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

Absolutely... The U.S. isn't going to shed a drop of Blood over Japan's Trumped up war with China, over Islands THAT ARE NOT INTEGRAL parts of Japan, nor historically have they ever rightfully belonged to Japan...

Japan's position on the Senkaku islands is the same as the position China had on the islands in 1950. The Senkaku (Sento) islands are a part of Okinawa. In 1950, the Chinese published the document "Draft platform on issues and arguments in the parts concerning territories in the peace with Japan." In the document the Chinese stated that:

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)."

The Chinese acknowledged that the Senkaku (Sento) Islands were a part of the Yaeyama islands. China's stance on the Senkaku islands only changed in 1971 when natural resources were discovered in the area. But none of this will deter the Chinese from trying to take the Senakaku islands by force. Let's not forget the Chinese tried to take the northern part of Vietnam in 1979. The Chinese only backed down because the Vietnamese fought back. Chinese respect might and not diplomacy. The Chinese motto is: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

17 ( +18 / -1 )

I wonder what a more radioactive Asia would be like?

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

A lot more toned down in rhetoric from China in response to Hilary's acknowledgement publicly of the treaty and USA's stance with it. As was stated above looks like the big guy on the block has cast his shadow over a local nuisance. It's mind boggling that some people really think ( here ) that Japan is at fault in any way with this issue. REMEMBER china signed over the islands ...that line "they tricked us" what ?? Who writes your dialog ??? Is that the best you can come up with ? Followed by USA losing credibility ??? Come on !!! This is coming from a country that violates other countries continental shelfs and waters ....comes out with statements like "we have rights over Hawaii" .....next they'll be saying Greenland belongs to them as well ....wait better throw Newfoundland in too !

Credibility ....lost in translation .....

8 ( +10 / -2 )

And because Japan legally controls that territory, the US is obliged to honor the treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security that is 52 years old. Mrs Clinton was absolutely right to acknowledge that. If China does something stupid, the US can't be neutral, and it is completely stupid for the Chinese to think the US will just sit quietly to the side whilst China takes Japanese territory by force. Remember only US and Russia have capacity to sink Asia continent underneath of ocean.

If US does something stupid, Russia can't be neutral, and it is completely stupid for Australian to British to think the Russia will sit quietly to side whilst US takes China as punch bag in her own backyard. Russia had mutual obligation to protect the neighbor for not becoming punch bag. They also have Shanghai treaty for counter balance for Uncle Sam. The world is not owned by US or Australia.

The mess is Japan doing. That dispute have existed since 1960s. It has never been public exposure or media milky cow.Japan is a legal trustee who is administering trust. However trustee violated the silent and diplomatic mural agreement made with neighbors. Beside that you and I are not son of God for telling disputed nations who own that islets. That Islets have been existed million years before European settlement on US or Australia. Japan history is fraction of that islets.

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

Chin4SailorJan. 20, 2013 - 07:46AM JST The U.S. needs to clarify it's position to Japan, especially Hillary who's never served a day in Uniform, telling Japan >American Troops are going to help defend some remote, desolate atoll, 12-Hundred Plus Miles from Tokyo.. You Silly Japan... Stop starting wars...

The U.S. has clarified it's position to China. Either they can start acting like a civilized country or go ahead and start WWIII with the entire world.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

“This unbalanced position has betrayed its declared intention to stay neutral on the issue.”

The US has said exactly the same thing over and over: no stance on sovereignty, but Japan administers the islands. Japan's control falls under the security treaty.

People like the author of the quote above just have selective earwax buildup, and don't want to hear it. Agree or disagree, that has been the stance. If anything, it's a much more laid-back stance than it used to be, but the US WILL step in if China makes a move on the islands.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

A big bad job for China to show to its people that they are not afraid of the BIG BAD CLINTON. Time to empty rhetoric.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Nathaw

If US does something stupid, Russia can't be neutral, and it is completely stupid for Australian to British to think the Russia will sit quietly to side whilst US takes China as punch bag in her own backyard.

Why would the US do something stupid? It would take Chinese aggression on Japanese territory to prompt any kind of US military response. The Chinese will instigate it. There is your stupidity.

I didn't mention Australia or Britain at all - I'm not sure why you bought that up. And you are tripping if you think Russia would step into a Chinese instigated conflict with the US and Japan on the Chinese side. No way will they do that.

However trustee violated the silent and diplomatic mural agreement made with neighbors.

Which agreement are you referring to?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

This island dispute is just the beginning of what China intends to claim.....

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Of course, communism is the greatest betrayal of the Chinese people; the US simply gravitates to those nations with similar respect for human dignity, like Japan. Were the PRC not under CCP/PLA diktat, the relationship between "China" and Japan and the USA would be a thing of beauty. Meantime... people suffer and prepare for war under defunct illusory gods such as Mao and todays CCP princelings.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@lachance: you're completely right. There is another problem making a small shadow on the horizon, but that could contribute a lot to this imbroglio: the leftist nations that are anti-American no matter what. I cite Venezuela's Hugo Chavez as an example. Venezuela is not a global player, but its oil reserves can be a deciding factor if Venezuela's neighbors are called or involved into this China x Japan dispute. China is seen as "friendly" by South American nations and I don't doubt that Argentina, for instance, would position itself against a USA/England/Japan alliance, in favor of China. Also, there are other dictatorial Mid-East nations that no doubt would position themselves against this alliance. Of course, this is a long shot, but we have seen other wars started by hardheads before.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Get ready Japan, you are on your own for protection for the next four years. It is about time. Change the constitution now.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

US should not interfered our Asian people matters, they came to Asia to ruined us and make us japan and china fighting each other. what an idiot American!

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

MorryJan. 20, 2013 - 10:28AM JST

This island dispute is just the beginning of what China intends to claim.....

Not really. I think it's fair to say Chinese rapacious proclivity toward hegemony in the region started long before they pointed their bellows toward the Senkaku's cinders.

Lets take a quick glance at tensions/claims/disputes in the region.

Maritime boundary in the Gulf of Tonkin between Vietnam and China Maritime boundary along the Vietnamese coast between Vietnam, China, and Taiwan Maritime boundary in the waters north of the Natuna Islands between Indonesia, China*, and Taiwan Maritime boundary north of Borneo between Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei Senkaku/Diaoyu Island chain dispute between China and Japan Islands in the southern reaches of the South China Sea, including the Spratley Islands by Vietnam, Malaysia, The Philippines, Taiwan, and China Maritime boundary off the coast of central Philippines and Luzon between the Philippines, China, and Taiwan Islands in the northern reaches of the South China Sea, including the Paracel Islands between Vietnam, China,* and Taiwan

Hmmmmm.....anyone spot a recurring pattern here ?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

TamaramaJan. 20, 2013 - 09:36AM JST

Why would the US do something stupid? It would take Chinese aggression on Japanese territory to prompt any kind of US military response. The Chinese will instigate it. There is your stupidity.

Reality is US has made many stupid things in past. Pls ask innocent Irag and Afgan civilians who lost their love ones. Some are amputee become half human now. Does Irag posses WMD? Did Vietnam fall become Asia Domino? Most of the wars were geo-political misadventures and committed unspoken war crimes. Australia is a faithful follower of US stupid wars and sacrifice many young men. Those loss of Young Men lives are simply pleasing big brother smile instead of national interest. There are many Australia mistake or stupidity for blindly following US aggression and thirst for oil.

I didn't mention Australia or Britain at all - I'm not sure why you bought that up. And you are tripping if you think Russia would step into a Chinese instigated conflict with the US and Japan on the Chinese side. No way will they do that.

Nathaw may mix you with other poster who is bring union jack and pacific pivot issue. Strategically, US want Japan as Northern Capitan and Australia as Southern Capitan and SE Asian nations as middle blockage. Therefore China is becoming circled that. However you have to remember that Russia and China are adjacent nations. Circling China likes Circling Russia too. When I look at the map, that Islets is pretty close to China and Russia. I do not want to debate the legal or historical issue. Let's say that conflict is on that Islets. Geographically Russia is very uncomfortable about US force getting close to her.

If you think Russia will move on happily after whatever US is manipulating, you may come from another planet. I agree with Nathaw for strategic counter balance of Unlce Sam. I think China is not desperate about that Islets for resources. It is strategically comfortable for China to get some comfort zone. Let's say I am your neighbor, I am expanding my fence until touching your window, how will you react? Uncomfortable truth is Japan is very far away from that islets. You can debate it is part of Okinawa. Okinawa natives have never been there in history. If we follow all of dots of Okinawa chains, it will reach to Russia souther shore.

Which agreement are Nathaw referring to?

Both of ROC & PRC didn’t attend 1951 San Francisco Treaty meeting because of China civil war so later on Treaty of Taipei was signed for all related issues.

The background of the disputed isles base on they were not part of Ryuku because after Japan’s forceful assertion of its authority over the Ryukyu Kingdom in 1874. Later in a letter dated Sept 22, 1885 by Nishimura Sutezo, the Okinawa Prefectural Magistrate, addressed to the JP Home Minister that the Okinawa Prefectural Magistrate requested additional instructions regarding the placement of national markers on the Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands. So after JP got Ryuku, JP further tried to took the isles from China. And after 1895, JP got them on the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. Thus, there is no reason to suppose that reference to Formosa in the Cairo Declaration & Potsdam Proclamation did not include “all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa.” Moreover, by virtue of Article 2 of the San Francisco Treaty (excluding both the ROC and PRC), Japan renounced “all right, title, claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.: Lastly, the terms were reiterated in Article 4 of the 1952 Treaty of Peace between the ROC and JP which stated,

Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands… all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between China and Japan have become null and void as a consequence of the war.

This provision completes the chain of treaties and agreements that legally require Japan to renounce its claim to Taiwan and, by implication, all the islands that appertain to or belong to Taiwan. Also as a result of this provision, the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki became nullified. Viewed together, the above treaties and agreements form the legal basis of the ROC’s claim to the disputed islands.

From PRC side, there is another story because they point to the Joint Communiqué between the PRC and JP signed in 1972 which states that Japan “adheres to stand of complying with Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.” which are further confirmed by the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the PRC and Japan, signed on 1978.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

@Flyfalcon Unfortunately for China, the islands were not grabbed by Shimonoseki, but by a terra nullus declaration. There would be no need for Treaty AND a declaration if the islands were part of Taiwan. And while those islands may look relatively close, they ARE a good hundred plus kilometers away from Taiwan proper which is another good reason for saying they are reasonably not part of Taiwan.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

China ought to calm down. For one thing, the US did not state who has sovereignty over the islands one way or the other -- they clearly said they support Japan's administration of them, and you cannot dispute that Japan currently administers the islands. Second, China should recognize that Japan and the US are simply buttering each other up -- Japan buttering up the latter for protection and weapons, and the the US sees a huge cash cow and progress on base issues, etc. It's not going to lead to war, and the US is not going to turn its back on China as they need China much more from an economic perspective.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Meant to add... just you watch! Once the favours start rolling in for the US (progress on Futenma), as many Japanese will be angry as the Chinese are, and things will start looking less rosy for Abe an Co.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Wow, most of these posts are about conflict, either endorsing or hoping for. How about just a end to the dispute with diplomacy being the force used to end it? The dislike between Japan and China still can be seen in some of these posts. Let the past go and forgive and forget.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@ john putnam: in a perfect world your point of view would be cristaline. But, look around, if you don't pay attention to what's going on and are realistic...the likes of you are first casualties in a war. The ones that didn't see it coming, or fantasized it was just rumours...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Chin4Sailor

''over Islands THAT ARE NOT INTEGRAL parts of Japan, nor historically have they ever rightfully belonged to Japan''

What let you say this? If any fact you know, I would like you to list here. I am not interested in what you think but what you know.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Funny to see all you traitors supporting China. If it wasn't for the U.S we would all be taken over by terrorists or working in sweatshops in China.... If China keeps getting away with bullying it's way over everyone the whole world will be doomed.

Personally I like having the U.S.A behind me rather than China. I live in Japan and know that we are safe because of that.

If China thinks the islands are theirs take it to the legal courts. Don't go breaking the laws by sending its junks into our waters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This provision completes the chain of treaties and agreements that legally require Japan to renounce its claim to Taiwan and, by implication, all the islands that appertain to or belong to Taiwan. Also as a result of this provision, the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki became nullified. Viewed together, the above treaties and agreements form the legal basis of the ROC's claim to the disputed islands.

The Senkaku islands are a part of the Yaeyama islands. That was the official stance of the Chinese in 1950.

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)."

If Okinawa were an independent country, the Senkaku islands would still be a part of the Yaeyama islands. China never had effective control of the islands. On the other hand, Okinawans have been fishing in those waters before the Chinese even knew of the existence of Taiwan or Okinawa.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

These islands are part of Japan and the only way Red China will get them is by force.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

It's all a smoke screen for something bigger to come.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

U.S. position on island dispute a betrayal: China

Hey man, take it easy! it's life these sort of things happen from time to time. The US betrayed ROC to make friend with you PRC. Also, Japan did samething too and even earlier than the US. So, be patient, I think it won't be long for the US to change his position again when American jobless ratio go high due to Abe's yen devalue policy. Let's wait and see.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

FlyFalcon

Allow me to take exception to several of your points.

Reality is US has made many stupid things in past.

I don't dispute that, but your argument about Iraq, Afghanistan et al are not relevent to this situation. Comparing those conflicts to these is completely misguided - they bare no resemblance to this situation at all.

If you think Russia will move on happily after whatever US is manipulating, you may come from another planet.

The US has had those bases near Russia for 67 years, it's nothing new for Russia - and the dispute is not with Russia, or Russian sovereignty at all. In fact, the head of Russia’s Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, said in October in Japan, said that Russia will not take sides in this dispute. Russia will remain neutral, I'm afraid. You won't get their help in this one.

I do not want to debate the legal or historical issue.

So why did you write all this?

Both of ROC & PRC didn’t attend 1951 San Francisco Treaty meeting because of China civil war so later on Treaty of Taipei was signed for all related issues.

The background of the disputed isles base on they were not part of Ryuku because after Japan’s forceful assertion of its authority over the Ryukyu Kingdom in 1874. Later in a letter dated Sept 22, 1885 by Nishimura Sutezo, the Okinawa Prefectural Magistrate, addressed to the JP Home Minister that the Okinawa Prefectural Magistrate requested additional instructions regarding the placement of national markers on the Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands. So after JP got Ryuku, JP further tried to took the isles from China. And after 1895, JP got them on the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. Thus, there is no reason to suppose that reference to Formosa in the Cairo Declaration & Potsdam Proclamation did not include “all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa.” Moreover, by virtue of Article 2 of the San Francisco Treaty (excluding both the ROC and PRC), Japan renounced “all right, title, claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.: Lastly, the terms were reiterated in Article 4 of the 1952 Treaty of Peace between the ROC and JP which stated,

Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands… all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between China and Japan have become null and void as a consequence of the war.

This provision completes the chain of treaties and agreements that legally require Japan to renounce its claim to Taiwan and, by implication, all the islands that appertain to or belong to Taiwan. Also as a result of this provision, the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki became nullified. Viewed together, the above treaties and agreements form the legal basis of the ROC’s claim to the disputed islands.

From PRC side, there is another story because they point to the Joint Communiqué between the PRC and JP signed in 1972 which states that Japan “adheres to stand of complying with Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.” which are further confirmed by the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the PRC and Japan, signed on 1978.

Seems like you are real keen to discuss the legal and historical issues.

Obviously, the Pescadores, Spratly and Paracel Islands are not what we are dicussing, as Japan does not currently administer them. And from what you have written above, you seem to be arguing that Taiwan has the best legal and historical claim to the Senkakus, which is problematic for China, because Taiwan is a seperate country.

Also, Japan didn't take the islands from China, they occupied them as Terra Nullius, and as, you point out, China signed them over at Shimonoseki. Neither the Cairo or Potsdam declaration mention the Senkakus, and in the end, the US returned the administration of them back to Japan in 1972.

Thus, Japan still is the legal administrator.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Many writers seem to say that the USA ruined Japan and kept the Japan/China conflict going. Yes, any argument or discussion that results in Japan v. China v. Korea is good for the USA taxpayer. It time to bring the troops and the their families home from Japan and Korea. The paid vacation is over. If the military personnel stay, that may be more acceptable to the USA taxpayer, but not all the family members. The military in Iraq, et al. do not take there family members there. Stand up Japan and Korea. Defend yourselves today.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If China keeps getting away with bullying it's way over everyone the whole world will be doomed. Want an example of doomed? Look at how much people suffer and get crushed by the Chinese government if they do not bow to their ways. 100's of Chinese are being beaten to death because they refuse to move and sell their land.

The same goes for us.. If we do not fight for what we own the Chinese will bully and bash us. This is why I support U.S. If the U.S was not here China would have already taken over Australia and Japan.

Personally I like having the U.S.A behind me rather than China.

I live in Japan and know that we are safe because of that.

If China thinks the islands are theirs take it to the legal courts. Don't go breaking the laws by sending its junks into our waters.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Tamarama Jan. 20, 2013 - 01:17PM JST

Comparing those conflicts to these is completely misguided - they bare no resemblance to this situation at all.

I think you missed the point of Flyfalcon post. You mentioned China is an aggressor. However PRC has been disputing that issue since 1960s. If they are aggressive, why are they so patient for wasting those years? They have waited HK for 100 years. Who knows? They may wait until thousand years for settlement. The real problem of that conflict is many backroom deals and provocations from Uncle Sam who needs cash for selling military hardware. Otherwise, weapons manufacturers will be unemployed.

When I compare your post and Flyfalcon post, your post is obviously your personal feeling. There are not much about reality and historical reference. His post like more scholarly research including date of historical events. Sound like he is more accurate.

The US has had those bases near Russia for 67 years, it's nothing new for Russia - and the dispute is not with Russia, or Russian sovereignty at all. In fact, the head of Russia’s Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, said in October in Japan, said that Russia will not take sides in this dispute. Russia will remain neutral, I'm afraid. You won't get their help in this one.

Do you really think Russia is a paper tiger? Russia is getting stronger now. Russia has no interest of other nations dispute. However allowing someone to bully at her own backyard in is national humiliation. Pls ask Mr Putin directly if you think Russia will be neutral for that issue. As Patrick posted, US was unable to defeat the poorly equipped Iragi and Afgan militia. China and Taiwan ships have been come and go as they please for almost half century. If US is willing and committed, what took it so long for blocking those ships?

Also, Japan didn't take the islands from China, they occupied them as Terra Nullius, and as, you point out, China signed them over at Shimonoseki. Neither the Cairo or Potsdam declaration mention the Senkakus, and in the end, the US returned the administration of them back to Japan in 1972.

Is Terra Nullius Japanese name? If you research Ryuku history, Ryuku kingdom was annexed in 1874. Senkaku or Diaoyu became part of Japan in 1895. If that islets belong to Ryuku why was so many years gap between 1874 and 1895. Many posters debated pointlessly with bias. Not many have sound knowledge about that issue.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

There are two issues here, and Clinton has correctly defined them: 1- “We want to see China and Japan resolve this matter peacefully through dialogue”: -> US supports peaceful diplomacy of the issue 2- "the area around the islands in the East China Sea was under Japan’s control and therefore protected under a U.S. security treaty with Tokyo" -> US will stand by Japan in case of military attack Through balance of power the threshold for military conflict is raised. This is a good thing for everybody, including China. In fact, China has more to gain that anybody if they would become the peaceful leader by example of the Asian economic region.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Athletes

Difference between HK and Senkaku is that the British Empire had signed a contract of LEASE to the Qing dynasty therefore the present British government simply abided that contract. The Japanese Imperial government had done a careful survey to confirm the Senkaku isles are Terra Nullius that is why it took time to declare it is Japan's sovereign territory.

As for Russia, no I do not think they will show any interest towards a military conflict if PRC is the one that started it first. They know Japan does not make military aggressions against disputed territory with the Nothern territory as prime example. The Russian simple does not have any reason to militarily assist PRC against a territorial dispute that PRC started in the first place.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Just as we "opened up" China with Deng, we can "close it down" at will.

@Iachance Your comments show your lack of understanding of 21st century world order, and it seems you are still stuck in the 1970's era. Let's get this straight, China is the creditor, USA is the debtor. Have you heard of a mortgage borrower "shutting down" a bank ? The bank "shuts down" the borrower, not the other way around. This analogy fits exactly with the China-US situation we have right now. Don't get stuck in the 1970's buddy !!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

speaking from the foreign point of view - it is time to change the constitution- China is only holding off due to the US. and will hope to get the US to blink when they start moving China's carrier group in the region.

The constitution was forced on by the US, it did it's job, it gave the country a new thought process, but it is not set in stone - and can be changed.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

US should step aside and let japan china to have a gentleman meeting and discussion. US only come to put on the fire and they hope japan china fighting each other, this will not end and only japan china lose and US gain. We Asian should not let the americans ruined our dignity and pride.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Japan needs US until it changes the constitution to own its own full-fledged military. After that Japan can defend itself from China. Meantime China will have more problem domestically and I wonder if Communists government can survive the war both internal and external with Japan as well as the withdrawal of foreign capitals out of the country.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Chin4sailor-san,

Absolutely... The U.S. isn't going to shed a drop of Blood over Japan's Trumped up war with China, over Islands THAT ARE NOT INTEGRAL parts of Japan, nor historically have they ever rightfully belonged to Japan.

Totally agree.

Even though I am a big Obama supporter, I fault his administration for leading Japan on, and empowering them to act more aggressively (but I doubt the Bush administration would have done any better, probably worse, probably would have started a war already...)

Ah! But the U.S.A. is hoping to hawk some rather expensive military equipment to Japan.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

kukuchai-san,

US should step aside and let japan china to have a gentleman meeting and discussion. US only come to put on the fire and they hope japan china fighting each other, this will not end and only japan china lose and US gain. We Asian should not let the americans ruined our dignity and pride.

Well said!

And I hope the U.S.A. takes Abe and his right wing warmongering friends with them when they leave.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Britain, Germany, and France all rejected Japan's claim to the island and sent the Japanese foreign minsters back to Japan losing face.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

It is clear and always has been that the islands in question belong to Japan. End of story.

China is embarked on a program of unilateral expansion in the entire Pacific Rim and this is just one example the reason it gets so much publicity is that Japan and its ally the US is strong enough to stand up to China, and has made that clear.

So I dont know why the discussion repeats over and over, with the usual voices from propaganda and carefully reasoned expositions of the Japanese situation. I guess it makes for good conversation..but Abe and the Japanese Government is being very mature and stable and calm about it all and is making points world wide. The mention of a few European countries not feeling brave enough to support Japan is rather pointless, there is lots of history that has caused those countries to lack the courage. It has nothing to do with this situation and Japan does not need support from anyone for the truth.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Those European countries need trade with China. It's more important to them than supporting Japan. New World Order.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Athletes

If they are aggressive, why are they so patient for wasting those years?

Yes, China sending boats and planes to the Senkaku islands are clearly forms of aggression and intimidation.

When I compare your post and Flyfalcon post, your post is obviously your personal feeling. There are not much about reality and historical reference. His post like more scholarly research including date of historical events.

Well, there is no need for me to regurgitate the information, and most of what he wrote is historically accurate, except, he has his very Chinese interpretation of the information. I merely pointed out that there is no reference to the Senkakus in any of the treaties he cited, as well as suggesting that the information he presents suggest that Taiwan, not China, has a better claim to the islands. Perhaps Japan should negotiate with Taiwan?

However allowing someone to bully at her own backyard in is national humiliation. Pls ask Mr Putin directly if you think Russia will be neutral for that issue

Well, China are the ones doing the bullying here, and Nikolai Patrushev is Mr Putin's representative, so he is giving the official Russian line.

I am not Japanese, Chinese or American, so I think I can look fairly impartially on this issue. Whether you like it or not, those islands are legally under Japanese administration - and they don't have to give them back, especially when China are behaving like schoolyard bullies.

If China wants the islands, they should withdraw all ships and planes and ask very, very nicely, and maybe offer lots and lots of money.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I am not Japanese, Chinese or American, so I think I can look fairly impartially on this issue. Whether you like it or not, those islands are legally under Japanese administration - and they don't have to give them back, especially when China are behaving like schoolyard bullies.

Me either! I have read Flyfalcon and Athletes post twice. I did not see anything they said Japan have to give them back to China as you mentioned. It is your own interpretation. The point is like you or I have to be less bias and promote the peaceful settlement. China needs to be more mature. It is true however everything is their fault means extreme bias and hatred. In my knowledge, PRC contributed Aust prosperity however they are hated instead of treating as major trading nation.

Yes, China sending boats and planes to the Senkaku islands are clearly forms of aggression and intimidation.

Both PRC and ROC fishermen have been fishing there before Australia was discovered by Capitan Cook. Can Aborigines say that Capitan Cook and fellow settlers are clearly forms of aggression and intimidation. They have been kicked off from their ancestor land. Aust government should compensate more about native suffering.

If China wants the islands, they should withdraw all ships and planes and ask very, very nicely, and maybe offer lots and lots of money.

As u posted, that islands have been under Japan admin for 3 decades. Why did Japan want to provoke and inflame something is already under control. Without the media exposure of politician action, not even PRC or Taiwan will remember it is under control of Japan. The fact is there are some politicians want to poke the BEE nest. They want to humiliate PRC as toothless tiger. The rest is Bush fire of Aust Summer.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Nathaw

I did not see anything they said Japan have to give them back to China as you mentioned.

So you don't think FlyFalcon or Athletes are advocating for the islands to be given to China? Are you serious?

I don't understand why you guys keep mentioning Australia at all within the context of this argument....Australia or it's history has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!

Why did Japan want to provoke and inflame something is already under control. Without the media exposure of politician action, not even PRC or Taiwan will remember it is under control of Japan. The fact is there are some politicians want to poke the BEE nest. They want to humiliate PRC as toothless tiger.

You are referring, I assume to Ishihara. That man is a fool - the Japanese government were perfectly correct in shutting down his plan to purchase those islands. He is also just one man and he does not represent Japan, or the Japanese people. You should remember that. The Chinese should be able to distinguish between the disparity as well.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The best director's reward should go to the USA, it successfully produced the angry Beijing, the Tokyo clown and the audience are happy - watching the show and receiving political/ financial gains. Box office triumph means selling more weapons to countries around the stage out of the prospect of a war and the fear of not being able to self defend, just enough to make balance of that profit lost in national gun control. So all loss for Asians and all wins to Americans? It depends. China can view it as a debitor's effort to pay off its debts and focus more on the solution on "keeping the cake": not long ago, when some powerful nations saw deficit in their trade with China, they thought of war - on Chinese soil. Remember the cake, reverse the order in the menu: have dessert first then the fish ; )

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The only thing I see is the Communist party of China throwing a big tantrum jumping up and down screaming "It's not fair I want it so I should get it" like the last time when they demanded the Waun to be an international currency and also got slapped by the face by the global community. LoL

0 ( +3 / -3 )

the USA, which has proved itself incapable of beating heavyweights like Afghanistan and Vietnam of late

Keep telling yourself that Patrick. When facing a regular army that fights wearing uniforms the US will mop up the ground with their opponents. When faced with cowards (like in Afghanistan and Iraq) who wear civilian clothing and hide themselves among school children and in hospitals, the US has had to fight with one arm tied behind their backs.

As much as I dislike the communists I have no doubt they will never demean themselves by stooping to terrorist like tactics in battle. That said, there is no way the communist chinese will risk an open fight with the United States over this small matter.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

When facing a regular army that fights wearing uniforms the US will mop up the ground with their opponents.

Yeah. Chile, El Salvador, Grenada...Anywhere there's a government the Americans don't like, they're there fighting fair and square. No dirty CIA death squads, no Siree... God bless Uncle Sam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And I hope the U.S.A. takes Abe and his right wing warmongering friends with them when they leave.

Abe is a Japanese citizen and the duly elected PM of Japan.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

hidingout-san,

Abe is a Japanese citizen

True.

and the duly elected PM of Japan.

Er. No.

That would be a president.

The people of Japan elect the party, in Abe's case, the LDP. And the party chooses its leader.

Perhaps the Americans should take you with them when they leave.

Couldn't do. I don't have a Green Card.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

And the party elects its leader.

Fixed that for you Wooster-san.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Much obliged, hidingout-san.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Absolutely... The U.S. isn't going to shed a drop of Blood over Japan's Trumped up war with China, over Islands THAT ARE NOT INTEGRAL parts of Japan, nor historically have they ever rightfully belonged to Japan. Totally agree.

Anyone who holds the point of view that the Senkaku Islands are not an integral part of Japan are really showing their ignorance and how naive they are about the territory itself.

Beyond what "may" be under the islands, one has to consider the territorial boundaries that are inclusive with having these islands as a part of Japan vs China. If Japan gives in to China (they wont) but for arguments sake only here, if the Senkaku Islands became a part of China does anyone really want to see how far China will try to push it's luck in the East China Sea? Do people actually consider what China thinks is their territorial boundary and what it would be if it included the Senkaku Islands?

Please people dont let your ignorance get in the way of thinking clearly about the ambitions of China and their desire for an open and clear passage into the Pacific Ocean.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

and the duly elected PM of Japan.Er. No.

Err YES, duly elected by the party in power. Get your information straight. There is a difference between a direct election and how Japan elects it's PM's. Whether you like it or not Abe was DULY elected by the rules and laws that govern here in Japan.

That would be a president.

Actually you are wrong here too, some countries elect their PM's by direct election and the popular vote, not just a "president". Might do you some good to check up on that.

Perhaps the Americans should take you with them when they leave. Couldn't do. I don't have a Green Card.

And as much as you show your hatred for the US and the US Military they still would probably take you with them because you come from an allied country of the US. Consider yourself lucky.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

As in any Homicide.... you always ask, who had the most to gain? Why now, after so many months, did the U.S. Govt announce it recognizes Japan as having control of the Islands? What changed.... the LDP is back and this coalition appears solid. Now the next question.... what did the USA want in exchange for its Public support of Japan regarding the Islands? I'd be willing to bet the U.S. Govt wants and Anti- U.S Military Base activity quashed. I'd also think that the U.S. would be looking for some trade concessions going forward too.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yubaru,

You write, presumably quoting me:

you show your hatred for the US

If you were referring to me, I am afraid that you are under a misapprehension.

I do not hate the U.S.A.

If I hate anything it's senseless violence.

US military intervention and covert operations have made the Middle East a blood bath.

And in the latest situation with China, under Abe, Japan is beginning to show signs of the reappearance of the military it displayed before and during WWII. Of course, Abe wouldn't have the courage to do this alone, he is a puppy dog yelping behind his master.

And China, with its seizing of Tibet and senseless cruelty is another source of senseless violence.

But, one can see their concern.

They don't want all out war either.

And with a neutral U.S.A. they would have had a chance to resolve the issue peacefully.

But the U.S.A. isn't neutral, is it?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

And with a neutral U.S.A. they would have had a chance to resolve the issue peacefully.

You have your head in the sand if you think that by having the US neutral the issue could get settled peacefully, it would be worse than what is happening now because China would KNOW that the US isn't taking sides and wouldn't stop China from possibly taking the islands by force.

The US being behind Japan in the security treaty is what keeps this conflict from escalating beyond the tit for tat fly-by's and boats running around the islands.

Take the US out of the equation and there is no stopping China without violence.

I do not hate the U.S.A.

Yeah right, everyone has seen what you write about the military people and SOFA status on Okinawa, the proof is in the pudding, meaning your words here on JT say more than anything you write now. But I'll give you credit for coming to your senses.

US military intervention and covert operations have made the Middle East a blood bath.

And without it it would have been genocide. The end doesnt always justify the means however take the US out of the discussion and let see how the world rips itself apart.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Take the US out of the equation and there is no stopping China without violence.

US has been fighting for Islamic terrorists for a long time. However it is fruitless and getting out of control. Sadly those terrorists were trained and armed by US during 1980s for counter balance of Russia aggression. Bin laden and Hussein were puppets of US before. However they were ungrateful for US free training and free weapons. Since 9/11, terrorists are getting momentum and spreading violence in many parts of the world. The latest news is Japanese hostage have been slaughtered.

Have any thing US achieve with using force? Did Vietnam fall become Asia domino of communism? Ideology is different from Reality.

It has demonstrated the biggest foreign policy failure of US. US have to look after her backyard who are struggling to make ends meet and violence spreading into kindergarten. No one will impress someone who can not make his or her own house is order first.

When NK fly the Rocket over Okinawa, ground force watched the sky as "Star Trek to the Darkness" movie trailer. They are pretty helpless and looking for place for hiding. Why do so much resource and space for accommodating base which are no longer relevant for real combat.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Athletes-san,

US has been fighting for Islamic terrorists for a long time. However it is fruitless and getting out of control. Sadly those terrorists were trained and armed by US during 1980s for counter balance of Russia aggression. Bin laden and Hussein were puppets of US before. However they were ungrateful for US free training and free weapons. Since 9/11, terrorists are getting momentum and spreading violence in many parts of the world. The latest news is Japanese hostage have been slaughtered.

Well said!

The US has made a mess of the Middle East by trying to force it into their mould. And now, they seem to be trying to do the same with Asia.

Unfortunately, I cannot see eye to eye with brother Yubaru's opinion that the US presence is what is holding China back. On the contrary, it seems to me that the presence of huge US bases is likely to escalate any violence in this part of the planet also.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yubaru,

It would be so much easier to enter into a discussion - i.e. an exchange of ideas - if you could refrain from the veiled insults.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Suppose you're a major power that has an inkling a particular area may hold untold $billions in untapped hydrocarbon reserves, and you have no hand in the game; what do you do?

This whole thing will continue to simmer until there's agreement on peak oil. If / when that happens the push to develop will become the driving factor, and things will really start to boil.

The rational thing to do is set up a joint, international economic zone and parcel out development rights with provisions for sharing the wealth and resources - yeah, right. Sorry. Don't know what I was thinking...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What if China and Taiwan combine their forces, then it is no longer a "unilateral" action. This may get the US out of the picture.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CHINA = BIG, JAPAN=TINY, TINY BIG MOUTH, BIG SINK BIG MOUTH. Very simple. Wake up people, a War is what you are going to get, Japan will be the biggest loser just because of Arrogance.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

flowersJan. 22, 2013 - 06:06AM JST What if China and Taiwan combine their forces, then it is no longer a "unilateral" action. This may get the US out of the picture.

Only way this will happen is if the PRC invades the ROC and this may come as a shock to you, but the US would come to it's aid against the PRC.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

CHINA = BIG, JAPAN=TINY, TINY BIG MOUTH, BIG SINK BIG MOUTH. Very simple. Wake up people, a War is what you are going to get, Japan will be the biggest loser just because of Arrogance.

BIG=BULLY The Chinese thought they could take the northern part of Vietnam in 1979. The Vietnamese showed that when you stand up to the bully with enough force, he backs down. The Chinese should look back to 1999 when they miscalculated and had their embassy destroyed by five U.S. JDAMs. The U.S. is serious about protecting its interests. The only prudent course of action would be for the Chinese to revert back to their stance in 1950 and reaffirm that the Senkaku islands are a part of the Yaeyama Islands.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

humanrightsJan. 22, 2013 - 08:38AM JST CHINA = BIG, JAPAN=TINY, TINY BIG MOUTH, BIG SINK BIG MOUTH. Very simple. Wake up people, a War is what you are going to get, Japan will be the biggest loser just because of Arrogance.

If this so called war of your would be fought 1200 years ago then you might be right, but today wars are a much different thing.

Take the PRC's navy, it's second largest in the world, but the bulk of it's force are coastal defence ships and Amphibious vessels. The majority of it's subs are old Soviet era hand-me-downs that make more noise than a steam locomotive going through a tunnel.

So your belief that a war would be one sided shows little insight into the facts.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace.

Then we turn eleven, but okay, I like the image.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Chinese to revert back to their stance in 1950 and reaffirm that the Senkaku islands are a part of the Yaeyama Islands.

According the Taipie treaty singed between Japan and ROC as US witness, it was not valid. Japan surrendered all territories occupied as pre 1895 status. US has to respect the treaty who organized and singed as witness.

Yaeyama belongs to Okinawa chain. When Japan annexed Ryuku in 1874, Senkaku or Diaoyu was not included. In 1895, Senkaku bacame part of Japan.

It is Gerographically or Historically inaccurate as Senkaku are part of Yaeyama Islands as you posted. If you follow all Okinawa chain, it will reach to Hainan. Is Hainan also part of Yaeyama Islands?

BIG=BULLY The Chinese thought they could take the northern part of Vietnam in 1979. The Vietnamese showed that when you stand up to the bully with enough force, he backs down.

BIG=BULLY US thought they could take the northern part of Vietnam in 1971. The Vietnamese showed that when you stand up to the bully with enough force, he backed down with humilation.

So your belief that a war would be one sided shows little insight into the facts.

In South East China Sea, Russia and North Korea who will not move on happily when US took PRC as punch bag at their backyard. Although one sided show is questionable, one thing is definitely sure that US will not get everything her way as you posted. Beside that PRC is not punch bag who will not punch back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Green PandaJan. 20, 2013 - 05:24PM JST

Those European countries need trade with China. It's more important to them than supporting Japan. New World Order.

You are not doing enough readings. There have been political frictions among France, Germany Norway, England, Spain.....and more as China is not playing a rule of the world. When do you learn? Chinese are not welcomed there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

humanrightsJan. 22, 2013 - 08:38AM JST

CHINA = BIG, JAPAN=TINY, TINY BIG MOUTH, BIG SINK BIG MOUTH. Very simple. Wake up people, a War is what you are going to get, Japan will be the biggest loser just because of Arrogance.

The size has nothing to do with the issue. China needs to stop threats against Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan. China is ignorance and arrogance. With help of Japan, US, Europe, China became the 2nd largest economy in the world, but we can still strip China to poverty.

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