Japan Today

fw360 comments

Posted in: Japan defense update to stress air, sea surveillance capabilities See in context

I do not know why people on this forum are still debating if US had stabbed Japan’s back on this issue.

Just read the many 24-hour old news articles reporting that US government has urged all American airlines to submit flight plans for “passing through” this PRC ADIZ. (I am also curious why Japan Today does not report this.) This really slaps the face of Abe’s government… They demanded non-compliance from Japanese airlines who withdrawed their previous compliance statements. That really make Japanese look bad… they are violating the cardinal rule of civilian flights: first priority is the passenger safety. They care more about playing politics than civilian lifes!

Is there any coordination between Japan and US?

Here are some sample articles you can read.

Reuters: U.S. commercial airlines advised to notify China of flight plans http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/30/us-japan-china-usa-airlines-idUSBRE9AT01K20131130 CNN: U.S. 'advising' airlines to 'comply' with China request on disputed zone http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/29/world/asia/china-japan-us-tensions/index.html?iref=allsearch

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Japan defense update to stress air, sea surveillance capabilities See in context

I think all the reporters (Reuters, NYT, CNN, etc) on this subject of air-defense-identification-zone should be sent back to school to refresh on professional journalism.

They all have missed a key point in this dispute.

It is not because China ESTABLISHED this identification-zone over international air space… More than 20 countries (started by US) ESTABLISHED them decades ago. Additionally, US has mobile identification-zones around its naval carriers.

It is not because China UNILATERALLY established this identification-zone … all countries (more than 20) did their identification-zones “UNILATERALLY”.

It is not because this Chinese identification-zone OVERLAPS with that of Japan, Korea, Taiwan… Japanese identification-zone OVERLAPS with that of Korea and Taiwan (against their protests).

It is not because this Chinese identification-zone requires IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION INFORMATION before the plane enters it… All identification-zones have this requirement.

The problem is that China identification-zone requires “flight plans beforehand for even just passing-through”… that is a new requirement that does not exist in the previous ADIZ identification-zones from the other countries. So the “flight plan for passing through” should be the bone of contention or criticism… because all the other arguments have no moral and logic ground to stand on!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. vows to defend Japan after China announces new air zone See in context

I think all the reporters (Reuters, NYT, CNN, etc) on this subject of air-defense-identification-zone should be sent back to school to refresh on professional journalism.

They all have missed a key point in this dispute.

It is not because China ESTABLISHED this identification-zone over international air space… More than 20 countries (started by US) ESTABLISHED them decades ago. Additionally, US has mobile identification-zones around its naval carriers.

It is not because China UNILATERALLY established this identification-zone … all countries (more than 20) did their identification-zones “UNILATERALLY”.

It is not because this Chinese identification-zone OVERLAPS with that of Japan, Korea, Taiwan… Japanese identification-zone OVERLAPS with that of Korea and Taiwan (against their protests).

It is not because this Chinese identification-zone requires IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION INFORMATION before the plane enters it… All identification-zones have this requirement.

The problem is that China identification-zone requires “flight plans beforehand for even just passing-through”… that is a new requirement that does not exist in the previous ADIZ identification-zones from the other countries. So the “flight plan for passing through” should be the bone of contention or criticism… because all the other arguments have no moral and logic ground to stand on!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: Chinese coast guard keeps up pressure on Japan in island dispute See in context

@JTDanMan

The problem with your argument is: there are no such books about the Great Wall of China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Chinese coast guard keeps up pressure on Japan in island dispute See in context

@CH3CHO

I can agree with you on this point, China should go to ICJ, if it has not yet... Let the result be binding on Japan and China. So that Asia and the world can avoid a major conflict which is no good to anybody.

But I thought the official Japanese position is there is "no dispute" on the islands!?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Chinese coast guard keeps up pressure on Japan in island dispute See in context

@JTDanMan

Compared to the researches/evidences in this and other books on this subject (by Chinese and Japanese scholars) that support Chinese ownership, your assertion of Japanese ownership is just that... an assertion.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: Chinese coast guard keeps up pressure on Japan in island dispute See in context

Many people on this forum ask for proof of Chinese ownership of disputed island. Just read the new book by a Japanese professor, they are all in the book… unless you can disprove it.

Read this article in Japan Herald: http://www.japanherald.com/index.php/sid/215566809/scat/c4f2dd8ca8c78044

Tadayoshi Murata, of Yokohama National University, supports Chinese scholars’ research and claim that China has ownership of the disputed islands. He demonstrated that with references and evidence in his new book titled “The Origins of the Japan-China Territorial Issue” which was published recently in June of 2013. He argued Japan and China should peacefully coexist without this issue.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Chinese coast guard keeps up pressure on Japan in island dispute See in context

It really belongs to China, after all?

Another Japanese professor states the disputed Diayu/Senkaku islands belong to China. Professor Tadayoshi Murata, of Yokohama National University, supports China’s ownership of the disputed islands. He demonstrated that argument in his book titled “The Origins of the Japan-China Territorial Issue” which was published recently in June of 2013. (Professor Kiyoshi Inoue previously expressed a similar view. He was a Japanese academic, historian, author and professor emeritus of the Kyoto University.)

Read this article in Japan Herald: http://www.japanherald.com/index.php/sid/215566809/scat/c4f2dd8ca8c78044

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

Posted in: S Korea urges Japan to face history; China summons Japan envoy See in context

@ SamuraiBlue

Then just remove the war criminals (1068 war criminals and 14 of them Class A war criminals) from the Yasukuni shrine, as suggested by many before, this particular controversy will not be front and center in your international relationship when the politicians pay homage to the souls of million died for defending their country.

(These war criminals can be enshrined in some other Shinto shrine if the right-wing extremists want to.)

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Posted in: S Korea urges Japan to face history; China summons Japan envoy See in context

Paying homage to this Japanese shrine with convicted Class A war criminals and denying many war crimes during WW2 is like… just imagine… the current German government denies the Holocaust (and other war crimes) and has a shrine that listed Hitler and his deputies as “gods” and it is paid homage by many German people and political heads every year after WW2. There would be unthinkable uproars in the western world.

In comparison, what protests came out from Korea and China is nothing strange and maybe too weak a reactions from Asian countries.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Posted in: S Korea urges Japan to face history; China summons Japan envoy See in context

Just reading some of the news articles about the August 15 memorials on WW2 in Japan makes me sick to think that in this day and age there are still so many Japanese people, many political heads, want to honor this shrine which includes a group of Class A war criminals... by extension to honor the Japanese invasions into and killing in many countries in the Asia Pacific region (e.g. Korea, China, USA, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Burma). This year Prime Minister Abe made it worse in his memorial speech by omitting any mentioning of Japanese "wartime aggression", a break from his predecessors tradition. Japan is moving more and more towards the fascist and militaristic extreme.

They choose to list the convicted war criminals as "gods", rather than excluding them from the shrine, as suggested by many before, so people can honestly honor the Japanese war dead (civilians and regular soldiers). The name "peace country" is an oxymoron to be used to name this shrine of wartime state religion which inflicted so much pain and suffering to millions of people, including the Japanese.

Honoring war dead in a shrine that included hundreds of convicted war criminals is NOT an act of praying for peace, rather it is a yearning for the past "glory" of imperial conquering and murdering millions of people in Asia/Pacific region. Perennially memorializing the victims of the two nuclear bombs without mentioning the victims of Japan's previous invasions into other countries is selective memory. The current Japanese Deputy Prime Minister recently stated they want to follow the Nazi model to change the Japanese peace constitution. One gets the sense that the current Japanese political feeling about the WW2 is about the similar to Nazi German feeling about WW1. Watch out America! If we are not careful of the rise of Japanese extremist militarism, they may come to return the favor of the nuclear bombs.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Posted in: China warns of 'further actions' in Japan island dispute See in context

I believe the global economy is too fragile (sick Europe, teetering US, lost Japan, decelerating China, double-inflation India, etc) to have any major military conflict... without plunging the whole world into hellish depression.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: China warns of 'further actions' in Japan island dispute See in context

It's not the "worth" of the island that Japan and China wants. If you look at the map, what China wants is the Japan's side of the median line between China's mainland and Senkaku in East China Sea. As it stands now, there a 6 gas offshore gas fields operated by China on her side of the median line.

My question is on co-ownership. (Something like the New York / New Jersey Port Authority co-owned by NY and NJ.) If somehow this can arranged and agreed upon, they would have overlapped EEZs and shared benefits. And UN can determine who should have how many percent share of the entity based on the facts/references/arguments presented by each side. (And this model can be applied to the disputed islands in South China Sea.)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: China warns of 'further actions' in Japan island dispute See in context

Another aspect of this perplexes me... I am sure Japan has shown to US all the facts/references that support the Japanese ownership, then why US keeps on stating "America has NO position on the sovereignty issue" on these islands??

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: China warns of 'further actions' in Japan island dispute See in context

I wonder if there is any precedent or legal concept of "co-ownership" at the sovereignty level?? Maybe Japan and China can co-own this island and they will be responsible for both the expenses and benefits.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: China warns of 'further actions' in Japan island dispute See in context

Like I said, while Japan can quote chapter and verse, China claim they can do the same or more by using references to international and marine-time laws... based on many articles and discussions I have read.

This should be discussed and argued in the UN and be settled once for all... instead of military confrontation. Hope both sides have the inteligence and internal political dynamics to come to this conclusion.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: China warns of 'further actions' in Japan island dispute See in context

Nigelboy - - I am confused... maybe need some education.

China objected in both cases. (a) On Aug 15 and Sep 18 of 1951 PRC published statements denouncing the San Francisco Treaty, stating that it was illegal. PRC did not sign the treaty. (b) On the 1972 transfer of RyuKyu administration from US to Japan, both PRC and ROC denounced its inclusion of Diaoyu. There were demonstrations in the streets. Actually the current president of ROC, Mr. Ma, was one of the student leaders in those demonstrations.

You, and Chamkun, are saying the those objections do not count under international law?!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: China warns of 'further actions' in Japan island dispute See in context

While people here think that China is bullying around, but the reading I got is the most of the populace in China feel that they have been "insulted" again by the "nationalization" of Senkaku and they are now being forced to take a stand.

Chamkun stated: "China was one of allies but said nothing and accepted the SF treaty then. Okinawa main island and all other islands were occupied by US, during the occupation, China said nothing, then they were returned by USA to Japan in 1972.Again, China said nothing."

That is NOT true, as I explained before. China objected in both cases. (a) On Aug 15 and Sep 18 of 1951 PRC published statements denouncing the treaty, stating that it was illegal. PRC did not sign the treaty. (b) On the 1972 transfer of RyuKyu administration from US to Japan, both PRC and ROC denounced its inclusion of Diaoyu. There were demonstrations in the streets. Actually the current president of ROC, Mr. Ma, was one of the student leaders in those demonstrations.

Furthermore, Article 3 of the SF Treaty did mention RyuKyu Islands. But the issue here is exactly that: China argues that Diaoyu/Senkaku is NOT part of RyuKyu.

I am no expert on international law. But, in terms of proof of the ownership, while Japan can quote chapter and verse, China claim they can do the same or more by using references to international and marine-time laws... based on many articles and discussions I have read.

The bottom line is: Actually I agree with Chamkun that this should be discussed and argued in the UN and settle this once for all… instead of military confrontation. I hope they listen to us.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: China warns of 'further actions' in Japan island dispute See in context

Nigelboy, CrisGerSan, Thywillbedone, etc - - -

There is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides.

It is sad to see a mutually beneficial Sino-Japanese relationship going down the toilet like this. It is bad for both economies.

For those who do not understand the feeling on the other side, please take a deep breath and read my post carefully. I believe it is an honest summary of many people's feeling in China. (A good reference for some of that is: www.globletimes.cn.)

For Nigelboy, a quick note: China did send their claim officially to U.N. a few days ago. Actually China wanted to sit down and discuss this issue; it was Japan who refused. Chinese experts are saying if Japan can be forced to come to the negotiation table, then China can chalk it off as a win for this round of struggle. They feel are the victims on this deal, as a result of mis-handling (to include Senkaku) by USA during the 1972 transfer of Okinawa. Then, USA steps away saying she has "no position on the ownership", which was again repeated by US Defense Minister a few days ago in Tokyo. Many in China think that US did it intentionally to cause trouble between China and Japan.

Rightly or wrongly, look calmly about the following arguments.

There are two major issues here: One latent and the other one explicit.

(1) The first one, the latent one is the general under-current of "hatred of Japan" in the Chinese populace. Japan needs to fix it. A netizen in Japan put it the best when he exchange viewpoint with others in the following way: Conchobar Sep. 17, 2012 - 03:52AM JST issa1-- While I disagree with the Chinese and Korean governments using the history issue as an argument in every political dispute, the Japanese politicians are completely at fault for continuing to give them ammunition. In Japanese culture, doesn't an apology only count if the sinner shows sincere self-reflection? You say "no matter how many times the Japanese people apologize," but complete or partial denials are common from high-ranking officials. It's not enough for a few politicians to occasionally make a perfunctory apology. They are the exception rather than the norm. It needs to be widespread and expected behavior for a Japanese politician to show remorse for WW2. If even a few German politicians deny the Holocaust, do we let it go and say "well, they've apologized enough, and all the Nazis are dead anyway"? The ultimate proof that Japanese acknowledgement of war crimes is lacking is the widespread ignorance of the issue shown by Japanese people. Many have never even heard of the Nanjing Massacre, have no idea where anti-Japanese sentiment comes from, and don't understand why peaceful Japan suffered the atomic bombs. For the Chinese and Koreans to forgive and forget would be akin to a mother forgiving a murderer who killed her son and then told everyone she complains too much.

(2) The second one is the current explicit issue on Senkaku/Diaoyu. Japan has to explain to Chinese populace and the world why the following viewpoint is invalid:

Where is the legal footing for Japan to argue today with China, Korea and Russia (all nations on the winning side of the WW2) on any island disputes? How anybody with a right mind can support Japan’s argument?

The Potsdam Declaration, which was made on July 26, 1945 by the leaders of the Allied Forces and ACCEPTED by the defeated Japanese Empire, clearly stated that the after WW2 Japan has sovereignty over nothing more than its four main islands and some designated nearby minor islets. (Look it up in any history book or encyclopedia.) As a loser of WW2, among other penalties, Japan gave up Taiwan (and Diaoyu was under Taiwan jurisdiction both during Chinese dynasty and under Japanese Empire rule).

(At 1972, when Diaoyu was included in the US return of Okinawa to Japan, both Taipei and Beijing lodged official diplomatic protest protested and people demonstrated in the streets. Even today US has no position on the sovereignty of this island. So this Diaoyu is NOT an uncontested island.)

What? Japan and others want to overturn the result of WW2??

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: China warns of 'further actions' in Japan island dispute See in context

After reading this and other articles about this subject, I have the following comments:

It is sad to see a peaceful Sino-Japanese relationship going down the toilet like this. It is bad for both economies.

There are two major issues here: One latent and the other one explicit.

(1) The first one, the latent one is the general under-current of “hatred of Japan” in the Chinese populace. Japan needs to fix it. A netizen in Japan put it the best when he exchange viewpoint with other in the following way: Conchobar Sep. 17, 2012 - 03:52AM JST issa1-- While I disagree with the Chinese and Korean governments using the history issue as an argument in every political dispute, the Japanese politicians are completely at fault for continuing to give them ammunition. In Japanese culture, doesn't an apology only count if the sinner shows sincere self-reflection? You say "no matter how many times the Japanese people apologize," but complete or partial denials are common from high-ranking officials. It's not enough for a few politicians to occasionally make a perfunctory apology. They are the exception rather than the norm. It needs to be widespread and expected behavior for a Japanese politician to show remorse for WW2. If even a few German politicians deny the Holocaust, do we let it go and say "well, they've apologized enough, and all the Nazis are dead anyway"? The ultimate proof that Japanese acknowledgement of war crimes is lacking is the widespread ignorance of the issue shown by Japanese people. Many have never even heard of the Nanjing Massacre, have no idea where anti-Japanese sentiment comes from, and don't understand why peaceful Japan suffered the atomic bombs. For the Chinese and Koreans to forgive and forget would be akin to a mother forgiving a murderer who killed her son and then told everyone she complains too much.

(2) The second one is the current explicit issue on Senkaku/Diaoyu. Japan has to explain to Chinese populace and the world why the following viewpoint is invalid:

Where is the legal footing for Japan to argue today with China, Korea and Russia (all nations on the winning side of the WW2) on any island disputes? How anybody with a right mind can support Japan’s argument?

The Potsdam Declaration, which was made on July 26, 1945 by the leaders of the Allied Forces and ACCEPTED by the defeated Japanese Empire, clearly stated that the after WW2 Japan has sovereignty over nothing more than its four main islands and some designated nearby minor islets. (Look it up in any history book or encyclopedia.) As a loser of WW2, among other penalties, Japan gave up Taiwan (and Diaoyu was under Taiwan jurisdiction both during Chinese dynasty and under Japanese Empire rule).

(At 1972, when Diaoyu was included in the US return of Okinawa to Japan, both Taipei and Beijing lodged official diplomatic protest protested and people demonstrated in the streets. Even today US has no position on the sovereignty of this island. So this Diaoyu is NOT an uncontested island.)

What? Japan and others want to overturn the result of WW2??

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Posted in: Noda says China must protect Japanese citizens, companies as protests resume See in context

Chamkun - -

Appreciate your rational discussion. Thank to your encouragement, I did just now read the San Francisco Treaty of 1951.

My comments:

*Article 3 of the Treaty did mention RyuKyu Islands. But the issue here is that China argues that Diaoyu/Senkaku is NOT part of RyuKyu.

*You stated: China said nothing and accepted the SF treaty then. Okinawa Senkaku islands were returned by USA to Japan in 1972. Again, China said nothing then. That is NOT true. China objected in both cases. (a) On Aug 15 and Sep 18 of 1951 PRC published statements denouncing the treaty, stating that it was illegal. PRC did not sign the treaty. (b) On the 1972 transfer of RyuKyu administration from US to Japan, both PRC and ROC denounced its inclusion of Diaoyu. There were demonstrations in the streets. Actually the current president of ROC, Mr. Ma, was one of the student leaders in those demonstrations.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Noda says China must protect Japanese citizens, companies as protests resume See in context

Ryu-1inOH - -

You made very good points… on looking and moving forward instead of backwards.

I thought Mr. Deng XiaoPing was such a statesman by tabling the Diaoyu issue with the previous generation of Japanese officials, and move forward the Sino-Japanese peaceful relationship in the last century.

But the current crop of politicians, e.g. Mr. Noda, have clumsily handled the current island dispute on Diaoyu (and other island disputes with Korea and Russia). Instead of cooling they irritate the dispute for no reason, no solution, and no benefit to either Japanese or Chinese.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Noda says China must protect Japanese citizens, companies as protests resume See in context

SamuraiBlue - -

No. It is obviously not in the Potsdam, etc international treaties. The fact that "Diaoyu was under Taiwan jurisdiction both during Chinese dynasty and under Japanese Empire rule" is in Japanese government and Chinese government references. (I cannot teach you everything. This is a homework left for the students to do.)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Noda says China must protect Japanese citizens, companies as protests resume See in context

Japan escalated this issue by: (a) refusing to recognize this is a disputed island and (b) officially nationalized the island.

Japan central government has awkwardly forced China's hand. Now China has been compelled to send 8 ships into the Diaoyu Island as a part of national response in order pacify the internal outcries and maintain its legitimacy.

I thought Japanese politicians are smarter than that after WW2! We will see a new Prime Minister in Japan soon.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Noda says China must protect Japanese citizens, companies as protests resume See in context

CrisGerSan, Faulknen, etc - - - Let me modify and ask the question again:

Where is the legal footing for Japan to argue today with China, Korea and Russia (all nations on the winning side of the WW2) on any island disputes? How anybody with a right mind can support Japan’s argument?

The Potsdam Declaration, which was made on July 26, 1945 by the leaders of the Allied Forces and ACCEPTED by the defeated Japanese Empire, clearly stated that the after WW2 Japan has sovereignty over nothing more than its four main islands and some designated nearby minor islets. (Look it up in any history book or encyclopedia.) As a loser of WW2, among other penalties, Japan gave up Taiwan (and Diaoyu was under Taiwan jurisdiction both during Chinese dynasty and under Japanese Empire rule).

At 1971, when Diaoyu was included in the US return of Okinawa administration to Japan, both Taipei and Beijing lodged official diplomatic protest protested and people demonstrated in the streets. US even now have no position on the sovereignty of this island. So this is NOT a newly found Chinese interest in Diaoyu.

What? Japan and others want to overturn the result of WW2??

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Noda says China must protect Japanese citizens, companies as protests resume See in context

Can someone offer a rational counterpoint the following viewpoint…

Where is the legal footing for Japan to argue today with China, Korea and Russia (winning nations of the WW2) on any island disputes? How anybody with a right mind can support Japan’s argument?

The Potsdam Declaration, which was made on July 26, 1945 by the leaders of the Allied Forces and ACCEPTED by the defeated Japanese Empire, clearly stated that the after WW2 Japan has sovereignty over nothing more than its four main islands and some designated nearby minor islets. (Look it up in any history book or encyclopedia.) As a loser of WW2, among other penalties, Japan gave up Taiwan (and Diaoyu was under Taiwan jurisdiction both during Chinese dynasty and under Japanese Empire rule).

What? Japan and others want to overturn the result of WW2??

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Recent Comments

Popular

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.