U.S. seeks calm over Asian disputes, but won't mediate

At the back, Hillary will tell Gemba to buy more of American made gun! More money for US economy!

China and Japan need to find a better mediator outside of the US. Germany & the EU perhaps?

The real question for China is whether the country can adopt a global perspective on the changes that are already underway, as symbolized by this latest “reversal,” and whether it can succeed in rebuilding an effective and viable international role for itself in the years ahead. The basic focus of that role should be the preservation of a liberal, open international order or to continue on its traditional path of isolation.

Just goes to show that the US values what China is supplying. All those "The US will go to war for us" folks really need to rethink their stance on that. Clearly, the US wants all countries to grow up and try and try to get along.

tmarie Sep. 29, 2012 - 07:59AM JST Clearly, the US wants all countries to grow up and try and try to get along.

I really don't know if U.S. really wants peaceful resolution anywhere, especially China. U.S. went to Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya so that everybody could get along? History shows otherwise.

The US can't and won't take a Japan/South Korea position.. China would like nothing better than to take advantage if that happened.

Sf, the US want to war for oil in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Something neither China nor Japan have. They aren't going to war for either. They do however wish both countries could grow up - so they can continue to use them both for their needs. Japan offers location, China offer cheap goods and mentals. Both of which the US doesn't want to give up

Here's an example of Chinese diplomacy:

http://www.emirates247.com/offbeat/china-tv-claims-philippines-as-chinese-2012-05-09-1.457968#add-comment

Yep, the Chinese are good people.

Of course the US will mediate if they have to given the criticality for these three countries to remain on the same page as it concerns regional security. Clearly Japan and SK conflict will never get overly serious thus US has the luxury to play the wise big brother role without having to commit to anything.

How important are remote islands of Senkaku and Takeshima for Japan? If we can build peaceful relationships with the two neighbors, it might be better we think about giving the islands to them. We admit that Japan in the past seized their lands and exploited people under expansionism. We took advantage of the situation that we were strong and they were weak. Japan cannot laugh at China and Korea about their barbarism. Japanese imperial army was brutal and savage not only to enemies but also to their own soldiers too. I think It is not the time countries fight for territories. The troubles of this time made me feel time slipped back a century. Larger lands do not promise happiness and prosperities of the countries.

So the US is doing a bit of Harry Enfield's Scousers: China "You! Outside! Now!" Japan "Oh not again..." US "Calm down! Calm down!"

SchopenhauerSep. 29, 2012 - 08:29AM JST How important are remote islands of Senkaku and Takeshima for Japan?

Extremely important. The island is worthless, but the real value is pointing to potentially abundant oil and natural gas deposits in the waters surrounding the islands. You have to remember that by the year 2020, China will be importing 70 percent of their oil, and by 2030, 80 percent. With 18 million cars a year that China adds to their cogested streets, they will be more assertive in finding new source of oil.

HonestDictator: China and Japan need to find a better mediator outside of the US. Germany & the EU perhaps?

As if anyone would touch this issue with a 10 foot pole, let alone Europe.

"China and Japan need to find a better mediator outside of the US. Germany & the EU perhaps?"

@HonestDictator:

I think Japan and China need to find a mediator period as the U.S. has declared they will not play a mediating role in the dispute.

Subtext: U.S. backs Japan.

Here is a good example how japanese settle things: Bataan Death March. Just watching it on TV as I write this. Chinese are not saints, so neither japanese. Way to settle matter is for japan to go back to its shell and stop claiming ownership of something robbed at gunpoint, stop nagging about Dokto, and do not even dream about Russia returning the southern Kuriles. Then there will be no problems about territorial disputes.

Hillary and the Korean guy looks quite happy, but Mr. Koichiro seems not happy, or it's compulsary for ally's responsibility?

Schopenhauer, well said. If this country has truly repentance, the least gesture of goodwill would be to give up claims to all three territories. But, a country that does not mean what it says, will show its true colors with its greed. After all, who started all these problems to begin with? It was Japan with its expansionism and agression once it saw in the late 1800s how other European countries plundered other weak countries for exploitation, yet japan needed resources it did not have in order to assimilate the industrial revolution.

Here is a proposal it can not go wrong: Japan will truly apology for war atrocities, genocide, human denigration, force prostitution, blatant murders, theft, illegal occupation, etc. Then acknowledge that these islands belong to China from ancient history but through deception, force, and collusion with the US, (punishment to China out of it turn to communism), it ended up receiving stolen property. Abandon any claims to all of them and their surrounding waters and its economic zone.

China, you will accept Japan's apologies unconditionally. You will allow japanese fishing vessels to operate within so many miles of the islands, (suggest from ten miles of the islands), and will negotiate for japanese oil companies to have exploration rights from outside 10 miles of the islands as a joint venture. If not, the revenues would go 50/50 if it is not a joint venture.

Hell, nobody is willing to propose any compromise.

Here is a good example how japanese settle things: Bataan Death March.

Generally speaking, things done six decades ago during a world war, prior to loosing, rebuilding, and becoming quite literally a new nation, are not considered good examples of how a given civilization does things. They are, however, a good indicator of where the speaker's head is stuck at. Join us in the 20th century.

Here is a proposal it can not go wrong: Japan will truly apology for war atrocities, genocide, human denigration, force prostitution, blatant murders, theft, illegal occupation, etc. Then acknowledge that these islands belong to China from ancient history but through deception, force, and collusion with the US, (punishment to China out of it turn to communism), it ended up receiving stolen property. Abandon any claims to all of them and their surrounding waters and its economic zone.

Wow, this is like a DIY for how to be a schoolyard bully...

China, you will accept Japan's apologies unconditionally. You will allow japanese fishing vessels to operate within so many miles of the islands, (suggest from ten miles of the islands), and will negotiate for japanese oil companies to have exploration rights from outside 10 miles of the islands as a joint venture. If not, the revenues would go 50/50 if it is not a joint venture.

How generous.

Hell, nobody is willing to propose any compromise.

That's a hell of a compromise you got there. Japan apologizes for anything and everything China can think of. Japan takes the blame for anything and everything China claims. Japan give China anything and everything China wants. In return, China takes all of this, and magnanimously allows Japan to peck at a crumbs it sprinkles on the ground. Yeah, no way that this could possibly go wrong.

Gee, if we had politicians who thought like this, we would never have international disputes.

SchopenhauerSep. 29, 2012 - 08:29AM JST How important are remote islands of Senkaku and Takeshima for Japan? If we can build peaceful relationships with the two neighbors, it might be better we think about giving the islands to them.

That's a very sweet sentiment... and so naive it too me nearly a minute to stop laughing. These same bits of ancient history are rolled out every single time China or South Korea want anything. Japan has given these countries TRILLIONS of dollars over the last couple of decades in foreign aid, and is even a tiny bit of gratitude? No. Grow up. Even if Japan gave them the islands tomorrow they'd be back the next day asking for Okinawa, and perhaps a little of Kagoshima....

Japan has to just keep saying, "No!". ... and cut off all that foreign aid they keep giving these greedy countries who show absolutely no appreciation.

I am getting the impression that US State Dept under President Obama isn't completely opposed to the idea of Japan re-arming itself and renouncing certain articles of a constitution the US wrote for them.

@FrungySep. 29, 2012 - 11:08AM JST

Don't exaggerate Frungy by saying Japan has given these countries China and South Korea TRILLIONS of dollars over the last couple of decades in foreign aid,. South Korea and China strive from rags to riches by themselves. It's Japan that received foreign aid from US. It is US rebuild Japan after ww2.

Generally speaking, things done six decades ago during a world war, prior to loosing, rebuilding, and becoming quite literally a new nation, are not considered good examples of how a given civilization does things. They are, however, a good indicator of where the speaker's head is stuck at. Join us in the 20th century.

While I agree with your sentiments, you also need to realise that many of those who were victims six decades ago are still around. Do you make such comments to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well or just the Chinese? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? In that case, Japan should stop crying about the atomic bombs and whatnot.

And are we not in the 21st century now?

I am getting the impression that US State Dept under President Obama isn't completely opposed to the idea of Japan re-arming itself and renouncing certain articles of a constitution the US wrote for them.

What gives you that impression?

While I agree with your sentiments, you also need to realise that many of those who were victims six decades ago are still around.

Then hopefully, they are not in charge of national policy. Bad things happen when leaders make decisions based on personal feelings. At least when regular civilians make comments like comparing all of modern Japan's attitude to those of the ones responsible for the Baatan Death March, people can just dismiss that sort of ludicrous comment as an individual opinion. A country saying the same thing sounds like a country looking for an excuse for war.

Do you make such comments to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well or just the Chinese?

I make the comment to anyone who seeks to judge the present based on a past that no longer exists. And yes, that includes both victims of the atomic bombs, and those who take pride in the bombing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

Yes, it is. Which is why no nation that I can think of has the right to order another nation to humble themselves for war crimes. At most, they can request a formal apology, but to pretend that one can force sincere regret out of a country through diplomatic (or military) means is ridiculous. And once one accepts those apologies, you don't get to go back and demand them again later on. The purpose of a treaty of friendship is to put the past behind.

In that case, Japan should stop crying about the atomic bombs and whatnot.

I have never heard Japan try to justify any international action based on the atomic bombings. What specifically are you referring to here?

And are we not in the 21st century now?

I suppose we are. Hard to tell, at times.

It is not the USA's taxpayer responsibility to become involved in the problem or process. Whatever happened to the Hague or UN? Just because the USA is interested in the situation does not mean it has to solve a 1000 year old situation.

The US authorities are loving this as more people will be weary of Japan fostering a more independent policy stance or moving closer towards its Asian neighbours. TPP will be and easier sell, though it will little benefit and more likely harm Japanese workers. The occupation of Japan will continue, especially to the detriment of Okinawa. It all stinks of behind-the-scenes orchestration.

Even if the American mediate. The winger will just turn left for a while and return to the right.

"I make the comment to anyone who seeks to judge the present based on a past that no longer exists. And yes, that includes both victims of the atomic bombs, and those who take pride in the bombing."

But the past colours the here and now and the future. Ignoring history would be foolish. And the past most certainly does exist - in those alive, those affected by it all and the policies made. If you want to take such a stance, you also need to address Japan's right wing groups and leaders such as Hashimoto, Ishihara and Abe who are also talking about the past.

My final conclusion is....

Japan should just leave. Agree on a border - where Ryuku ends. Japan can live without Senkaku. Also, don't dispute Takeshima. Just tell them that we want to get on peacefully and be friends and that not fighting over Senkaku and Takeshima are a token and proof of that. And then concentrate on Fukushima, Toukoku, the nenkin crisis, the aging society problem. the nuclear power plant problem, the suicide problem, the bullying problem, and get preparing for the next earthquake.

And get back to making fantastic products.

But the past colours the here and now and the future.

Coloring is fine. Dictating is not.

Ignoring history would be foolish.

Yes, it would be. Keeping it in its proper place, on the other hand, allows us to learn from it.

And the past most certainly does exist - in those alive, those affected by it all and the policies made.

No, the past is past. Whether the present is the same as the past is an entirely different matter. The biggest mistake one can make is to assume that the world that existed in the past continues on to the present day unchanged. The past is there to serve as cautionary tale for the present, not as a prophecy for the future.

If you want to take such a stance, you also need to address Japan's right wing groups and leaders such as Hashimoto, Ishihara and Abe who are also talking about the past.

I'm not sure what word I could have used that would be more inclusive than "anyone". Heck, I even made specific reference to the victims of the atomic bombs, by which I can only assume Tmarie was referring to the Japanese, and added anyone who takes pride in that (meaning certain Americans).

My final conclusion is....Japan should just leave. Agree on a border - where Ryuku ends. Japan can live without Senkaku. Also, don't dispute Takeshima. Just tell them that we want to get on peacefully and be friends and that not fighting over Senkaku and Takeshima are a token and proof of that.

The problem with that is that it requires a certain level of trust that China isn't going to view this as a weakness and continue to press forward on claims not just to Japan, but to other disputed territories as well.

And, frankly, China hasn't really done much to inspire that sort of confidence.

And then concentrate on Fukushima, Toukoku, the nenkin crisis, the aging society problem. the nuclear power plant problem, the suicide problem, the bullying problem, and get preparing for the next earthquake.

Yes, they should work on these problems, however not as a reason to abandon the islands to China (particularly if the islands hold a possible solution to the energy issue).

Every country is always going to have a list of serious issues it has to deal with. This China thing is just one of them, and to be perfectly frank, it really isn't something that is taking all that much time or resources to deal with, compared with other matters.

It's more like a neighbor continuously trying to borrow your lawnmower when you know he has no intention of giving it back. You just keep saying no, and he keeps asking you to lend it to him. It is certainly annoying, but it isn't worth giving in to, because at best you will be out a lawnmower, at worse he will take it as a signal that he can borrow anything else he wants from you, and he will use your surrender to press this tactic to all the other neighbors he wants to take things from.

paulinusa The US can't and won't take a Japan/South Korea position..

America Used to take a clear side,as follow facts.

1)Korea requested that Takeshima may also be included in the object of the abandonment in the San Francisco Treaty article#2. However, Takeshima was not treated as an object of a South Korean territory, and Takeshima dismisses it with the letter by David Dean Rusk who was a former Secretary of State.

2)An American special ambassador James Van Fleet who was sent by the 34th US president Dwight David Eisenhower to urge that South Korea return Takeshima to Japan.

3)MacArthur in April, 1960 sent a letter to McCnaughy who was the ambassador in Soul Korea. (The letter is available for public view in US archive, I have 4 pages of copies of these documents.) MacArthur said in page 3 quote,'' In addition of seizing Japaneses boats on high seas and practicing hostage diplomacy, Rhee regime also seized by force and is holding illegally Takeshima Island which has been always considered as Japaneses territory. Quote.

Panlinusa, You are right what you said at this moment. After S.Korea and China developed their economy, it seems the US policy has changed. But the history and sovereignty has been the same since the US took a side in those day. The realty should not Changed. I am not anti Korean or Chinese also I read Chinese characters so I read Korean old documents and Chinese documents as well. I can see how they engineered their argument with Japan. But I must say, historically and legally speaking for purely discussing for Takeshima or Senkaku issue, these islands belong to Japan.

Takeshima is different situation from Senkaku, I think Dokto is Korean island as they said but Takeshima and Dokto is not the same island. I respect the pride and passion of Korean people for Dokto.

For the Takeshima case, before the politician get involved, if the International geographic also historical specialist can make a team for few weeks, the based on the evidence from Korea, they could prove those two island was not the same island. I have a good guess which island was described in Korean old document in 512 also in 13, 18,19 centuries. Also the document when Usan area became a county in 1900. I saw a very interesting indication in their an Imperial command. If Korea an Japan seek the way to solve this issue, I feel there is the best way we could find.

Any way the based based on the report from the TEAM,after that the politicians should get involved a political settlement for this case for the future of Japan and Korea.

US defeated Japan in WWII with Allied force contribution. It is also true Allied force without US could not defeat Japan. US general MacArthur ruled Japan after Japan surrendered unconditionally. He was powerful however it is questionable that he was alone able to decide whatever he wished. Both Korea and China got civil wars during his administration. They were too busy to settle their territory claim. In 1950, Korea war broke out and Korean were also too busy with their conflict too. If that dispute were settled with multi nationals mediation, it was more meaningful.

US signed treaty with Native American for no more claiming of territory! In the reality, US did not honor the treaty. It is also true for treaties with Mexico and Spain. According history, territory gain and loss were not settled by one General decision. It is unfair for China and South Korea have to accept the injustice from biased General. He was not a Judge of ICJ! It is morally and legally unacceptable for them.

They were too busy to settle their territory claim.

Too bad. Being that the rest of the world could not read their minds, and being that China never, at any other time in history, formally declared for these islands, the rest of the world just went with the most likely option, that no one cared about these islands and if Japan wanted them, go ahead, take them.

US signed treaty with Native American for no more claiming of territory!

Yep, we were pretty much the asses on that one. So, let's see...we've gone from "These islands are Chinese, always have been, always will be, and we'll nuke anyone who says otherwise!", to "These islands are Chinese, and we have always said so!", to "Here evidence that these islands were always Chinese, even though we never actually said it out loud.", to "These islands are Chinese, but the Japanese tricked us into signing them over.", to "Look, the American cheated the Native Americans, and Japan cheated us out of our islands, so why shouldn't we cheat our way back to these island?"

No matter how you slice it, this whole thing is coming around one big circle to land at the precise point it was when it started, except now the rest of the world is seriously re-evaluating their relationship with China. For a while there, there was hope that China was maturing into a global player. now, with this little tantrum...well, I would hazard that Chinese economic reliability has taken a noticeable blow.

@cabadaje

That disputes have been existed for many decades. Japan, South Korea and China are refrained and diplomatic. Why did that issue become a boiling point? Truth is there were outside intervention or pressure for settling sooner than later. Japan authority under estimated the reaction of both South Korea and China. No nation or no one has moral or legal authority to settle that delicate matter in the short term according their interest. Why not they leave their dispute for next generation?

I agree both China and South Korea are immature and over reacted for that issue. However it was not entirely their fault. It TAKES TWO TO DANCE TANGO. If one nation keep biasing and inflaming, there will be more confrontation than reconciliation. According middle east experience, intervention will promote negative consequence. Hatred and prolong revenge will become vicious cycle.

As a economy, US has already passed debt ceiling limit of constitution. She has to concern about her liability instead of her banker. Unless it will not refrain from over policing others,it will damage her image, economy and united Allies. Taiwan and South Korea will not tolerate any biased settlement for Japan. They are part of the Allied force. Only Japan can unite all Asian nations for marching together.

That disputes have been existed for many decades.

Not really. Only three, actually. And the ownership of the islands isn't really in as much dispute as China wants it to be.

Japan, South Korea and China are refrained and diplomatic.

I'm not seeing how China calling for the use of force is being diplomatic.

Why did that issue become a boiling point?

Because China saw it as an easy win that could be used as a precedent in their other territorial disputes?

Truth is there were outside intervention or pressure for settling sooner than later.

Of course. The modern world is operating on a rather young global economy, and it is still standing on wobbly legs. The last thing we need right now is a country taking advantage of it for its own self-interest.

Japan authority under estimated the reaction of both South Korea and China.

The whole world did. For starters, no one else considered the issue either all that important or all that difficult to understand. Very few have changed their minds; it still isn't that big an issue to the rest of the world. That China is kicking up such a fuss (Korea's land dispute isn't really making the front headlines in the US) is seen more or less along the lines of a temper tantrum, not as the reaction expected from a first-world power.

No nation or no one has moral or legal authority to settle that delicate matter in the short term according their interest.

Unless, of course, the two nations as for arbitration. Which Japan has already stated it is willing to accept, but which China has to formally request, and which it has inexplicably shied away from. The rest of the world is wondering why China hasn't taken this rather obvious step to the conflict resolution.

Why not they leave their dispute for next generation?

Two reasons: First, it has been 3 decades already, and the new generation doesn't seem all that different from the old one. Second, the world is in the process of working a global economy right now. China is using this tiny little anthill of a problem to threaten the economy on a global scale. Think about that for a moment: Threatening a global economy based on something so minor that the major world powers never even considered an issue, and that even now don't consider an issue. What makes it worse is that this is perfectly in line with China's behavior of talking about major conflict, including nuclear war, as a possible resolution to a territorial dispute. In other words, this isn't a one-shot problem; this is simply how China believes business is done. To be perfectly frank, this attitude is far more worrisome than the fate of these islands. Who ends up with the islands is of far less importance to the global economy than the manner in which the dispute was resolved.

However it was not entirely their fault. It TAKES TWO TO DANCE TANGO.

We are actually at the point where that saying no longer has the power it once had. When the reaction to an event is so utterly disproportionate to the event itself, it can no longer be said that both sides are at fault. There comes a point that one has to say that actions on one side are reasonable and rationale, and the other side is at fault. Rioting and calling for holy war because a cartoon insulted your religion is not reasonable. Rioting and threatening nuclear war over uninhabited islands is not reasonable. Taking offense is fine, but there is a level which is acceptable, which allows both parties to share blame, and one which is not, where the balance is so blatant that the actions of the other side are completely eclipsed.

As a economy, US has already passed debt ceiling limit of constitution. She has to concern about her liability instead of her banker.

She would, if her banker wasn't acting like a loan shark. There is an old saying: "If one person owes many people money, that person should be careful. If many people owe one person money, that person should be very careful as well". Again, China isn't just playing with individual nations. The world has joined together as a global economy, and China is putting all of that as risk by acting as we were still in the same money market that were 30 years ago.

So forget the past when in works in Japan's favour and go on about it when it doesn't? You can't expect China to just get over things and move on when Japan can't do the same!

@candabaje

Not really.Only three!

Pls refer to Senkaku Islands wiki-the free encyclopedia. Both ROC(Taiwan) and PRC stared their claim from 1968.It has been 44 years. I am not sure about exact date. Between 1968 to 2009, there will no noise and direct confrontation between Japan and China. If there is no provocation from someone, there will be business as usual.

For South Korea and Japan dispute, I have more detail. It can be called as Liancourt Rocks dispute. After US general MacArthur extremely biased announcement, Korea did not lodge complaint straight away. Both South and North rejected his announcement although they were waring each other. However it was one year later after His announcement. The exact date was 28th April 1952 which South Korea started their dispute. That General has no mandate as Son Of God for deciding who will get which territory and who will not!

China has been threatening global economy is not entirely true. They have been sucking natural resources from world wide. However they purchased with money not with bomb and missiles. True commodity price will be up and down according Chinese demand. They have heavy influence to market. Current world wide doom and gloom were caused by two major factors. One is instability of middle East which is a major supplier of crude oil. One is excessive risks taken by unaccountable investment firms from US. They destroyed not only US image as safe heaven for investors but also causing world wide panic of consumers sentiment.

Riots of China what we saw in TV was just a one day incident. It will not occur everyday. Contrast to China, religious offensive movement from middle east, Muslim nations will take longer to heal. In the reality, not all problems have band aide solution for short term interest. If no one has raised that territory issue or no one has inflamed other religion, there will be no dramas and violent reaction. Settling difference later is better rather than sooner.

Wonder who will run away first from archipelago if naval skirmish declared, French, Italians, Germans?

So forget the past when in works in Japan's favour and go on about it when it doesn't?

It's almost not worth typing out a response if people are not going to bother reading it.

You can't expect China to just get over things and move on when Japan can't do the same!

I expect very little from China; China can do whatever the hell it wants. However, whatever it does is going to be judged by all the other countries playing on the global stage. Right now, China isn't making a good show of it. It's as if it is a slave to its past, not a master of it. No one has said China needs to forget the past. However, if China signs friendship treaties, that is a message that China wishes to move forward, and if China then reneges on that message, China will lose credibility. If China did not trust Japan's apology, it should not have signed a treaty of friendship.

Both ROC(Taiwan) and PRC stared their claim from 1968.It has been 44 years.

Fine. 4.5 decades. Not a whole heck of a lot of difference. That generation is still with us; it is still considered modern history.

Korea, I will defer to you, as I am not up to date on that dispute.

China has been threatening global economy is not entirely true.

Sure it is. That it isn't the only one doing so is a different matter altogether.

Current world wide doom and gloom were caused by two major factors.

Which is why people are very wary about a possible third factor.

Riots of China what we saw in TV was just a one day incident. It will not occur everyday.

Like the ownership of the islands, the effects of the riots are relatively unimportant. The part that sends the message isn't the riot, but the behavior of the government during the riot.

If no one has raised that territory issue or no one has inflamed other religion, there will be no dramas and violent reaction.

But that's the problem right there. Who could have predicted that a cartoon would have resulted in massive rioting in the middle-east? Who could have predicted that a simple transfer of ownership would have set of the riots in China? Doing business in a foreign country has always been a risky thing, however it is a controlled risk; studies are carefully done, and the stability of the region, including that of the government, is always one of the factors taken into consideration. If you have a market that suddenly blows up over something that you simply never even considered as significant enough to warrant attention, and even afterwards cannot justify the actions taken, the risk of that particular environment has increased exponentially.

South Korean Foreign Minister said that Japan bringing it to the ICJ is an abuse of international law. And China says that they won't opt for going to the ICJ while saying that Japan stole the islands. Actually this Korean/Chinese logic or rhetoric is lost on us. Clinton doesn't have to mediate because Tokyo and Seoul might be a good market for Ospreys, but she might at least suggest that going to the ICJ on our own is the only viable option.

@cabadage

For 4 or 5 decades will be really matter for settlement! After next 4 or 5 decades, many people from today post will not survive including you and me.

US secretary of states and Defense secretary have already announced they will not sideline or mediate for that Issue. Therefore cool head and compromise in the future will prevail over hatred and biased ideology. That article also belong to Japan and South Korea too. It sound stranges you are not interested about that two.

Every conflict will rise because of one sided bias to particular nation. As a policing nation, it has to maintain the integrity and fairness among conflicting nations. Example is Israel and surrounding nations. Japan is slowly becoming Israel among hostile neighbors. It does not get along with any of neighbor. it was spoiled like Israel.

In the free market, there will be risk and reward. Risking own capital and asset with excessive risks is acceptable. However if someone risked other people life saving or public fund or co-operate bond, it will be unaccountable. At the end, No one has mandate authority for betraying investor trust and interest. If co-operate failed, there will be safety net from government. If sovereign nation failed, there will be bail out from Stronger nations.If all nations failed, there will be world wide great depression. It is unwise for taking unimaginable risks.

Flyfalcon, He( MacArthur) was not a Judge of ICJ! It is morally and legally unacceptable for them

You are right, he is not the judge of ICJ. That why I think it is a good idea that Japan and Korea should meet the real judge at ICJ. Japan and Korea need to finish this issue very soon. I think except some extreme right wing people, once the final verdict is announced as it is Korea, I would say 99% Japaneses will accept the fact and no more issue for this case. Please support that Korea will go for it. Otherwise S.Korea's illegal occupation status will be remaining for long time. Even though MacArthur was not a judge as you said but he was very familiar with the development from Potsdam, Cairo declaration that Japan lost every thing but except 4 major islands of Japan. Then the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, then finally having a promulgation of San Fransisco treaty. MacArthur understood that the consensus of all allies not just USA, (It goes without saying,Japan said no opinion for the treaty. No influence.) In article #3, Takeshima is Japan. Okinawa and its' island became USA. This is not just MacArthur's individual point of view but all allies's point of view. I understand the passion and pride and historical value for Dokto by Korean people.

It will deviate the subject, I would not say it much here. Yes, Dokto is Korea. However Thkeshma and Dokto is not the same island. The based on Koran Documents in 512 to 1900, I am a believer that Dokto and Takeshima is not the same island with geographical, historical, and legal reasons that contained the Imperial command in 1900 when Usan area became a county which specified the area of Dokto which matches all other evidence the documents I learned from 512 to 19 century.

China owns about a trillion dollars worth of Japanese bonds. If they sell it, which they have threatened, it would bankrupt Japan. However, Japan owns about a trillion dollars worth of US bonds so if China sells their Japanese bonds, Japan would sell off their US bonds to pay China. The US is one of China's biggest customers. If the US goes bankrupt, China will have no one to sell to. However, China's currency is way undervalued... do you know why? Because if they stage an economic battle like this, the undervaluation would keep them alive and allow for domestic consumerism to replace the international market. China would suffer, but not like the rest of the world.

So do you think it really is a good idea for the US to ignore this situation? I don't think so.