Guru29 comments

Posted in: Protesters rally in Naha, Tokyo against U.S. military bases on Okinawa See in context

The case has intensified longstanding opposition to the bases—a key part of the U.S.-Japan security alliance

The US-Japan security treaty has effectively made Japan a protectorate of the US. And the person responsible for this is none other than Shinzo Abe's grandfather, Nobusuke Kishi, the top WWII criminal who received political funding from CIA and was handpicked by the US to run postwar Japan. The arrangement between the US and Japan also made Ryukyu a perpetual US military colony out of the needs of the Americans to militarize the East China Sea .

For me, the situation between Ryukyu and Japan is very similar to that between Papua New Guinea and Australia between 1906 to 1975 after Britain transferred the administration of Papua New Guinea to Australia.

When Papua New Guinea became independent in 1975, this is what the Australian PM, Gough Whitlam said:

"It should never be forgotten that in making our own former colony independent, we as Australians enhance our own independence.... Australia was never truly free until Papua New Guinea became truly free."

Putting it into the current situation in Ryukyu, the phrase becomes "Japan will never be freed of US control until the Ryukyus become truly free."

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan protests after Chinese navy ship sails near disputed islands See in context

If China hadn't ceded them in perpetuity to Japan in 1895, there wouldn't be a problem. If they hadn't discovered that there might be oil below them in 1969, there wouldn't be a problem.

The Japanese took those islands on its way to invade Taiwan in 1895 about two decades after colonizing the Ryukyu. But the 1895 Shimonoseki treaty is now superseded by the Cairo Agreements and other WWII peace treaties/ agreements.

I think the East China Sea issue has more to do with security than oil. The dispute would have been non-existent if the US has not militarized the East China Sea in the past 70 years and instead handed the Ryukyu islands to the UN Trusteeship for its eventual independence according to the agreement reached between China and the US in Cairo:

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization.""

So in the end, the islands are legally Japanese under international law and there should be no dispute in this matter.

In other words, you are saying the terms of surrender for Japan, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, many other WWII peace treaties and agreements, tens of millions of deaths and the two atomic bombs are nothing but just jokes and need not be taken seriously?

And just because Japan has a hearing disability and unable to pick up any sound wave no matter how loud a dispute is voiced out, it doesn't mean there is no dispute. We aren't living in a world of deafs, you know?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Posted in: Japan protests after Chinese navy ship sails near disputed islands See in context

At around the same time, three Russian battleships entered waters close to what Japan considers its territory, the Defence Ministry said. The Ministry said it was investigating whether the Chinese and Russian actions were related.

Japan have fully resolved its territorial disputes with China and Russia at the end of WWII by agreeing not to claim any territory as its own as long as it is disputed by China or Russia. In order to avoid a restart of WWII, Japan should really comply with these treaties/ agreements strictly.

For example, Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) says:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

And Japanese Instrument of Surrender says:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."

The 1972 China-Japan Joint Communique says:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

And Article 2 (c) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty says:

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

Japan even agreed to place the Ryukyu islands, the long chain of islands in-between the Diaoyu Islands and Kyushu under the United Nations trusteeship, the UN system to help former colonies to achieve independence in Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty:

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg. north latitude (that's the Ryukyu islands)...

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Posted in: China says Nanjing more worthy of remembrance than Hiroshima See in context

The Japanese soldiers responsible for Nanjing are war criminals, but that does not justify the suffering of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Are you implying that FDR and Truman should also be regarded as war criminals?

The main problem regarding Japanese war criminals is that many top WWII criminals had gone scot-free. Basically, only those who were responsible for the attack of Pearl harbor and invasion of the Philippines were punished by the US and the War Crimes Tribunals. As a result, China, two Koreas, ten SE Asian countries and all British and Anzac POWs have yet to receive any single cent of compensation from Japan for the various war crimes.

At the beginning of the cold-war, many US politicians believed they were fighting with the wrong enemies, that they ought to have sided with the fascists to fight with the communists instead of the other way round. So the US government did a reversal of their policy and released all top WWII criminals who were responsible for the war crimes in China along with many others from the Sugamo prison after the first round of the War Crimes Tribunal. And not only that, the US government even formed an alliance with these fascist war criminals and helped them to regain control of Japan. One of such top war criminals being Kishi Nobusuke. In “America’s Favorite War Criminal: Kishi Nobusuke and the Transformation of U.S.-Japan Relations“, July 1995, Michael Schaller states that

“Evidence in a variety of open and still classified U.S. government documents strongly indicates that early in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower … authorized the CIA to provide secret campaign funds to Japanese Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke–formerly an accused war criminal–and selected members of the Liberal Democratic Party… Kishi’s prewar friendship with Ambassador Grew assisted his political rehabilitation. A small but influential group of private Americans, who played a key role in drafting the Reverse Course policy, identified Kishi as among those best suited to lead the new Japan….“

http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp11.html

I'm sorry, but the Atomic bombing of Japan has nothing to do with China

Tamarama, you can't say they are totally unrelated. Japan started WWII in Asia by invading China. As an ally of China, the US ended the war with the 2 atomic bombs.

If Japan had not invaded China, Japan would not have to invade SE Asia to get the resources there to support its invasion of China. And if Japan did not intend to invade the Philippines, it would not have attacked Pearl Harbor to prevent US interfering.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Posted in: China says Japan relationship should be based on cooperation, not confrontation See in context

Low-tide elevations like reefs are legally part of the seabed, are not subject to sovereignty claims, and do not generate any maritime entitlements in their own right.

That's just your wishful thinking.

This is what UNCLOS says regarding the territorial waters of Reefs:

"In the case of islands situated on atolls or of islands having fringing reefs, the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the seaward low-water line of the reef, as shown by the appropriate symbol on charts officially recognized by the coastal State."

So all reefs are entitled to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters as long as they are not totally submerged in water during low tide.

Since you know basically nothing about UNCLOS, I will not be wasting my time on you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: China says Japan relationship should be based on cooperation, not confrontation See in context

They cannot build something into an island in order to gain maritime entitlements. Maritime entitlements are only for natural island formations.

They were entitled to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters according to UNCLOS even before they built on it. And they won't lose this entitlement just because they built something on it or expand it.

What is your point? Are you saying the reefs beneath your so called "artificial islands" weren't formed naturally in the first place?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: China says Japan relationship should be based on cooperation, not confrontation See in context

Under Article 121, islands must be “naturally formed,” so China cannot hope to legally upgrade its reefs by transforming them into artificial islands.

What is your definition of artificial islands in the first place? Something like the Okinotori rock?

Are you telling me that the reefs beneath your so called "artificial islands" weren't formed naturally?

And just because China, SE Asia countries and many other countries all over the world decided to build on or expand their islands or islets, so they have totally lost their entitlement of 12 nautical miles of territorial waters?

Are you serious?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: China says Japan relationship should be based on cooperation, not confrontation See in context

But those man-made islets are not sovereign Chinese territory - no international institution recognizes them as such

Those reclaimed or expanded islands or islets were built on existing reefs, not something like a floating platform or floating islands.

And according to UNCLOS, Reefs or rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, however they do count for territorial claims, i.e. claims of up to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: China says Japan relationship should be based on cooperation, not confrontation See in context

Then China should stop confronting Japan.

The main issues between Japan and its neighbors including Chinese, Koreans and Russians are territorial disputes and facing history squarely.

For the history part, Japan should at least stop practicing or preaching Jihad and fascism, the main belief of State-Shinto and Yasukuni Shrine.

For territorial disputes, Japan should comply with the various WWII peace treaties/agreements such as San Francisco Peace Treaty, Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII), Japanese Instrument of Surrender and Yalta agreement.

For example, the Yalta agreement says "The Kurile Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union."

Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration says: "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

And the San Francisco Peace Treaty says Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands and etc.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: China says Japan relationship should be based on cooperation, not confrontation See in context

Cooperation? Don't think the US will allow it. What exactly the US want between Japan and its important neighbors especially Russia and China is conflict and confrontation but without pulling the US into a war.

In order for the US to keep its important military bases in east Asia, it is of utmost importance that Japan be kept as a US protectorate for as long as possible, of course the best is permanent. And to achieve this objective, Japan must be kept totally isolated from its influential neighbors so that it will never break loose of US control.

In order to keep Japan totally isolated, the US even encourage Japan to reclaim lands it lost to the Allies in WWII, thereby violating the whole series of WWII peace treaties/agreements drafted and signed by the US government itself, these include at least the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII), Japanese Instrument of Surrender and Yalta agreement.

With so many countries claiming the Spratly Islands, China really is giving everyone the finger.

Well, China isn't the only one doing that. In fact, every claimant is doing it and some actually started it decades ago. Even Ashton Carter admitted to that. And even Obama said some of the Chinese's claims in South China Sea might be legitimate.

For me, the South China Sea issue is just a repetition of what happened in NE Asia. Whereas the US used Soviet Union to scare Japan into submission, it now uses China to scare the Philippines to give up its land to the Americans for them to build their military bases. However many Filipinos and Philippines presidential candidates aren't really happy about it because the American troops are famous for committing crimes like what they did in Japan.

However, I don't think the US policy of freedom of navigation for US bombers, aircraft carriers, spy ships and planes to anyway in the world can achieve much in South China Sea. No doubt the US will continue to send military ships and planes to the Chinese islets to intimidate them, so far it only gives the Chinese a good excuse to speed up their defense. And the Chinese will never give in because it is a matter of sovereignty.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Kishida says China's maritime expansion making world 'worried' See in context

Whether Okinitorishima qualifies for an EEZ is another matter and highly debatable

The UNCLOS which was ratified by Japan says “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no Exclusive Economic Zone or continental shelf.”

To the whole world, Japan's claim of an EEZ of 400,000 square km over a small rock of some 10 square meter is simply ridiculous.

I have no doubt Japan will be the biggest loser in the upcoming ruling by the international court of arbitration on the nature of some reefs in South China Sea since Japan has got the highest number of uninhabited islets in the world and the rulings will be equally applicable to Japan and other parts of the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Xinhua pours cold water on idea of Xi-Abe talks See in context

Park does not want to "formally meet" PM Abe. Since China cooperates with S Korea in dealing with Japan, it will not undercut S Korea.

Even Obama shuns Abe. Do you think the US is collaborating with China or S Korea too against Japan?

Do they think Abe wants to meet Xi just for the "honor" of meeting Xi? Does not it occur to them that Abe actually does not want to meet Xi but keeps saying the door is open, just for diplomatic curtsy?

"Saying yes to mean no" is not diplomatic courtesy but just Japanese courtesy because only Japanese do that. And you wonder why the Chinese and Koreans have kept saying Abe is not sincere?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Posted in: Author Murakami chides Japan over WWII, Fukushima responsibility See in context

It's very important for people like this to have a strong voice and be heard in Japan.

Certainly, there are Japanese who agree with him. However, most will not speak out like him out of fear of retaliation from the Yakuza.

It is even more so right now that the hardcore fascists who believe in the core ideologies of State Shinto (Yasukuni shrine) including fascism and holy war are now in control of the Japanese government.

In addition, there were no war crimes for events that had happened in China because of the communist takeover in 1949

Not only that, the US government also helped the war criminals to regain control of Japan shortly after WWII out of fear of the Japanese leftists.

For example, Kishi Nobusuke who received funding from the CIA and became PM of Japan was known to be responsible for the planting and trading of opium in China and the poisoning of millions of Chinese with it. And yet, his grandson Shinzo Abe said he possesses the same political DNA as his grandfather and has been elected twice as PM of Japan.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Chinese coast guard ships in disputed waters See in context

@Guru29 Excellent point, Guru29, except that the PRC is not a party to the Potsdam Declaration.

The whole world including the Japanese government recognizes PRC as the legal successor of the Republic of China and Russia as the legal successor of the Soviet Union. However, Japanese right-wingers have continued to live in dreams exactly like what their ancestors did in WWII. Why?

2 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: 3 women cabinet ministers visit Yasukuni Shrine See in context

What if those "individuals" feels strongly that it's the lawmakers and leaders duty to pay respects to them?

Even though the Yasukuni shrine claims that it did promote some 2.5 million Japanese to become its member gods for dying to fulfill the wishes of its God, Emperor Hirohito to conquer the world, there is absolutely no point for any Japanese to visit the shrine if they do not believe in what the shrine preaches.

Why would any Japanese worship or pay their respect at the shrine if they don't even believe in the followings:

-The Yasukuni God, Emperor Hirohito, as descendant of the Sun Goddess is the ruler of both Heaven and earth.

-The Japanese are superior to all other men on earth and are destined to rule the world on behalf of Emperor Hirohito.

-Emperor Hirohito did somehow manage to capture the souls of the 2.5 million terrorists who died all over the world in his holy war and these souls are retained in the Yasukuni shrine to this day.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Chinese coast guard ships in disputed waters See in context

A wars will happen and as japans is a allied country, we will 100% have to act.

The US does have a commitment to the international community to nuke Japan for claiming territories outside of what was defined in the various WWII peace treaties/agreements drafted/signed by the US government including the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan), Japanese Instrument of Surrender and the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

And so do other signatories of the various agreements including China and Russia since the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) says:

"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine." And "The 
alternative
 for 
Japan
 is 
prompt
 and
 utter 
destruction."

And the Japanese Instrument of Surrender says:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Japan to conduct island defense drill amid tension with China See in context

They could, and they did.

Then why does the US say it takes no position on the sovereignty of those islands and it is up to the respective parties to resolve the issue by themselves:

"The United States has made no claim to the Senkaku Islands and considers that any conflicting claims to the islands are a matter for resolution by the parties concerned."

Obviously, what you just said is only the view of the Japanese fascists and no one else.

The truth is the US is not in a position to determine the issue of Japanese sovereignty alone as long as the US doesn't rescind the Potsdam Declaration (conditions of surrender for Japan) it co-drafted with China which says Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine.

Looking up Guru29's posting history supports your statement.

Those WWII peace treaties/agreements are the foundation of peace in east Asia and were established with the cost of tens of millions of lives.

But of course to the Japanese fascists, those treaties are nothing more than rubbish.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Posted in: Japan to conduct island defense drill amid tension with China See in context

Your "conditions" of the Potsdam Declaration have been fulfilled

If Japan were willing to comply to the Conditions of surrender for Japan in WWII (Potsdam Declaration) like what you said and agreed that it deserves "prompt and utter destruction" for claiming territories that have not been determined to be part of Japan by US, UK, China and Russia, why then is it reclaiming territories it lost to the Allied such as the Senkakus and Kurile Islands?

That they were returned after trusteeship means that the US recognizes the islands as Japanese territory

I think you are confusing the Ryukyu Islands with the Senkakus which were never part of the territories of the Ryukyu Kingdom.

As for the former territories of the Ryukyu Kingdom, the agreement reached between the US and China during the Cairo Conference is to hand it over to the UN for decolonization (UN trusteeship system):

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization (UN trusteeship.)""

And the UN trusteeship system is even confirmed in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty:

Article 2 (d)

(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.

And Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg. north latitude (that's Ryukyu Islands.)

The fact is the UN trusteeship system did help many former colonies throughout the world to gain independence or self-government since its foundation as can be seen from its website:

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml

And as sole occupier of Japan and trustees of those islands, the United States returned them to Japanese sovereignty.

There is no way for the US government to determine the issue of Japanese sovereignty alone without agreement by the other 3 countries namely China, Russia and UK since both the US and Japanese government agree that

"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

And the US government did deny what you said in a statement issued somewhere in 1971.

I get the feeling that Guru29 is a spambot, seeing as the only posts of theirs I have ever seen are the constant repetitions of these post-war treaties

You are welcome to debate with me and to prove me wrong that Japan isn't reclaiming territories it lost to the Allied in the various WWII peace treaties/agreements. For example, why does Japan reclaim the Kurile Islands when the San Francisco Peace Treaty says the following:

Article 2 (c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands

And even when the agreements of the Yalta Conference say this:

The Kurile Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union.

So when will Japan comply with the various WWII peace treaties/agreements?

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Posted in: Japan to conduct island defense drill amid tension with China See in context

Its only normal that Japan practices to defend a "tiny" peace of its sovereign territory

Claiming the Senkakus can hardly be considered a peaceful act since it is a violation of the Conditions of surrender for Japan in WWII (Potsdam Declaration) which says:

"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

And according to Article 13 of the same document, the price for defying the Conditions of surrender is "prompt and utter destruction".

And Japan did accept the Conditions of surrender in many official documents such as the Japanese Instrument of Surrender:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."

Therefore, it is very clear that all the 3 parties involved, that's China, Japan and the US all agree that Japan deserves "prompt and utter destruction" for claiming the Senkakus (territories that have not been determined to be part of Japan by US, UK, China and Russia.)

So why is Japan still claiming territories it lost to the Allied in various WWII peace treaties/agreements even when it knows the price for doing so is "prompt and utter destruction"?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Posted in: Why is anti-Japanese sentiment remaining from the World War II era almost non-existent in countries like Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia, unlike in China and South Korea? See in context

This is obviously a wrong question. I guess the question must be asked by a Japanese rightist since he deliberately equates anti-Japanese government or anti-Japan as anti-Japanese.

As such, I believe the question should be rephrased to "Why anti-Japanese government or anti-Japan sentiments remain in China, Japan, North Korea and South Korea and not elsewhere in Asia?"

Yes, anti-Japan or anti-Japanese government sentiments for whitewashing of history is very much alive not only in China, North Korea and South Korea but even in Japan as reported in the following New York Times article:

"Already 78 years old and in failing health, the Rev. Shigeaki Kinjo no longer wanted to talk about that fateful day 62 years ago toward the end of World War II when he beat to death his mother, younger brother and sister.

Brainwashed by Japanese Imperial Army soldiers into believing that victorious American troops would rape all the local women and run over the men with their tanks, Mr. Kinjo and others in his village here in Okinawa thought that suicide was their only choice. A week before American troops landed and initiated the Battle of Okinawa in March 1945, Japanese soldiers stationed in his village gave the men two hand grenades each, with instructions to hurl one at the Americans and then to kill themselves with the other.

Most of the grenades failed to explode. After watching a former district chief break off a tree branch and use it to kill his wife and children, Mr. Kinjo and his older brother followed suit.

“My older brother and I struck to death the mother who had given birth to us,” Mr. Kinjo said in an interview at the Naha Central Church, where he is the senior minister. “I was wailing of course. We also struck to death our younger brother and sister.”

Mr. Kinjo agreed to tell his story again because the Japanese government is now denying, in new high school textbooks, that Okinawans had been coerced by Imperial troops into committing mass suicide.

In fact, for at least the past decade, nationalist scholars and politicians, like former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, had fought to cleanse textbooks of passages on crimes committed by Japanese soldiers. If the deletion of passages on wartime sex slaves or massacres angered Asian nations in recent years, this was the first time that the government’s whitewashing of the past had caused this kind of anger in Japan."

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Posted in: Chinese ships return to disputed waters after Obama Tokyo visit See in context

I think it's about time the 7th fleet conducted exercises around these islands.

You think Obama will agree to that now that Abe is celebrating his historic win over him and Aso is so eager to point out that he has no control over policy making in his own country?

And haven't Obama, US commander in Asia-Pacific and US commander in Japan all hinted that the US will not go to war with China if a war breaks out between Japan and China over the Senkakus?

Hell yeah. Or maybe Japan can build a weather station, or something on one of them.

That would be a provocation which could be escalated into a war. You think the US will allow that? And even if the US allows it, the facilities will most certainly be bombed down by China anyway.

The vessels entered 22 kilometers into Japan’s territorial waters off one of the Senkaku islands

I take it as a sign that the Chinese are not in any way affected by what Obama said about the US's security treaty with Japan recently.

The truth is as long as the US doesn't rescind the Potsdam Declaration (conditions of surrender for Japan) it co-drafted with China which says Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine, there will be no basis for the US to go to war with China over the Senkakus. But the US will never say it out clearly since doing so means it will lose Japan as a protectorate.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Posted in: Obama: U.S.-Japan treaty applies to disputed islands See in context

Japan was not a signatory to either declaration, hence the documents have no actual force in international law

The Potsdam Declaration isn't just a declaration, it is the conditions of surrender for Japan.

And it became binding on Japan when Japan signed or publicly announced the followings:

Japanese Instrument of Surrender:

"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."

Imperial Rescript of Emperor Hirohito

"Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration (i.e. the Potsdam Declaration)..."

Emperor Hirohito's Radio Broadcast

"We have ordered our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration."

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system

Japanese always like to say they do not know the difference between the US and UN. However, you statement just confirmed what I have been saying. If it is US trusteeship, why is there a need for the US to seek approval from the UN to put the Ryukyu islands (excluding the Diaoyu Islands which are located further south between north latitude 25 to 26 degree) under the UN trusteeship system for decolonization?

Excuse me. An ultimatum is issued BEFORE a war starts. An utlimatum is also know as a conditional declearation of war. Potsdam Declearation, which was meant to end the war, is not an ultimatum.

You are wrong. This is the definition of an ultimatum from wikipedia:

An ultimatum is a demand whose fulfillment is requested in a specified period of time and which is backed up by a threat to be followed through in case of noncompliance. An ultimatum is generally the final demand in a series of requests. As such, the time allotted is usually short, and the request is understood not to be open to further negotiation. The threat which backs up the ultimatum can vary depending on the demand in question and on the other circumstances.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama says Senkaku islands covered by security treaty See in context

The Marines are waiting for the PLA to show up, But China is afraid of sending them to the Senkakus

Chinese military aircraft have been patrolling the airspace around the Diaoyu/Senkaku and ships from China Coast Guard have been patrolling the sea around the sea of Diaoyu/Senkaku. Since when did Japan or even the US try to stop them?

My take is as long as the Chinese action does not jeopardize US's control over Japan or in any way affect the deployment of US troops in Japan, a direct conflict between the US and China is unlikely.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: China says it will maintain patrols near Japan's new island base See in context

Many of us have noted that until 2002 or so when China's military began to talk about owning all of the East and South China Seas the region was quite peaceful without so much tension.

The truth is if China only started to claim Taiwan (including Diaoyu islands) and the Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands in 2002, there would be no basis for the US to demand Japan to give up its claim on Taiwan and the Spratly Islands and Paracel in the San Francisco Peace Treaty:

Article 2 (b)

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores

Article 2 (c)

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands

Article 2 (f)

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.

Even though the US refused to name China as the owner of Taiwan, Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands and the Soviet Union as the owner of Kuril Islands as punishment for the Cold war and Korean war, if the US did not recognize China's claim over Taiwan, Spratly Islands and Paracel Islands and the Soviets' claim over the Kurile Islands, they would have been placed under the UN trusteeship system (UN system for decolonization) as unclaimed territories such as the Pacific Islands and Ryukyu Islands:

Article 2 (d)

(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.

And Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29deg. north latitude (Ryukyu Islands but excluding the Diaoyu/Senkakus which are located further south between north latitude 25 to 26 degree)

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Posted in: Obama: U.S.-Japan treaty applies to disputed islands See in context

In 1951, the Senkakus were put under US trusteeship by San Francisco Peace Treaty. In 1972, the Senkakus were returned to Japan along with other Okinawa islands.

Please read the San Francisco Peace Treaty carefully. According to Article 3 of the treaty, the Ryukyu islands (excluding the Senkakus) were supposed to be handed over to the UN trusteeship system (UN system for decolonization) for future independence, not US. Are you pretending that you don't even know the difference between the US and UN?

And according to Wikipedia,

"The United Nations Trusteeship Council, one of the principal organs of the United Nations, was established to help ensure that trust territories were administered in the best interests of their inhabitants and of international peace and security. The trust territories—most of them former mandates of the League of Nations or territories taken from nations defeated at the end of World War II (i.e. Japan) have all now attained self-government or independence, either as separate nations or by joining neighbouring independent countries."

The fact is the UN trusteeship system did help many former colonies throughout the world to gain independence since its foundation as can be seen from its website:

http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgov.shtml

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced back to the agreement made between China and the US during the Cairo Conference:

"During a private dinner with the Chiangs on the evening of November 23, President Roosevelt asked Chiang China's intentions regarding the Ryukyu Islands. According to the memorandum written by the Chinese side (Roosevelt's special assistant Harry Hopkins was present but did not apparently take notes), "The President referred to the question of the Ryukyu Islands and enquired more than once whether China would want the Ryukyus." To this, Chiang reportedly replied that "China would be agreeable to joint occupation of the Ryukyus by China and the United States and, eventually, joint administration by the two countries under the trusteeship of an international organization. (UN trusteeship as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty?)""

In 1972, China and Japan agreed in the Joint Communique to end the state of war and to maintain territory.

And the following is written in the Joint Communique:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

And Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration says:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

WW2 was over 69 years ago. Are you still fighting the war?

Obviously it is Japan that's still fighting the war, otherwise why would Japan be reclaiming territories it lost to the Allied in the various WWII peace treaties/agreements?

Guru29 The Republic of China signed the Potsdam Declaration; and since it still exists, the PRC can't be recognized as its successor for purposes of international law.

Are you mistaking Taiwan as China? As far as the UN is concerned, the PRC is the legal successor of ROC and it has replaced the ROC as a permanent member of UNSC.

If Japan did not recognized the PRC as the legal successor of the Potsdam Declaration, why then did Japan write the following into its 1972 joint communique with the PRC:

"The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation."

But, what can anyone expect from a member of the Communist Chinese 50-cent Army.

I am not a supporter of the CCP. I don't live in China and I'm not even Chinese.

Because it's a load of rubbish. Think before you type. You really think China would attempt to 'nuke Japan' over the Senkaku Islands?

The fact is almost all experts in this field agree that the issue could be escalated easily into a major war or even a world war. And since Japan agreed that the price for claiming territories that have not been certified to be part of Japan by US, UK, China and Russia is "prompt and utter destruction", how could the possibility of nukes be ruled out?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Posted in: Obama says Senkaku islands covered by security treaty See in context

"WASHINGTON — If the Chinese invaded the Senkaku Islands, U.S. Marines in the Pacific could recapture them, the commander of Marines in Japan said Friday."

The Chinese have been going there regularly for more than a year. Where is the US Marines?

It's a bit frustrating that posters here don't seem to grasp that the US-Japanese alliance is the single most important relationship the United States has in Asia.

Yes, Japan is an important protectorate of the US. However just because the Chinese have been going there regularly, it doesn't mean the US will lose its protectorate. The fact is the US needs pressure from the Chinese and Russians to make the Japanese feeling insecure so as to keep Japan as its protectorate.

However, the US must take all precaution to prevent a war from breaking out since it is likely to lose Japan no matter who wins.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Posted in: Obama: U.S.-Japan treaty applies to disputed islands See in context

There you have it, a big line in the sand.

Don't think a statement like that will make any difference since the Potsdam Declaration (Ultimatum and terms of surrender for Japan) which was co-drafted by China and the US says

"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine". And the price for defying the Potsdam Declaration as pronounced in the Ultimatum is "prompt and utter destruction".

And the Japanese government did accept the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and many other official documents.

So it is very clear that the three parties involved, that's China, Japan and the US all agreed that Japan deserves "prompt and utter destruction (that's be nuked)" for claiming territories that have not been certified to be part of Japan by the 4 countries.

Therefore, even if China were to execute the the Potsdam Declaration and nuke Japan, there would be no basis for the US to stop China.

If the US really wants to make a difference, it can always declare the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) as illegal and the 2 atomic bombs which was executed according to the Potsdam Declaration a mistake. And the San Francisco Peace Treaty which was written based on the Potsdam Declaration and agreements made in other conferences will also become illegal. Then we will have a restart of WWII with the US fighting on Japan's side.

Japan has territorial rows not only with China but also with South Korea and Russia -- over Senkakus (Diaoyus), Takeshima (Dokto) and Northern Territories (Southern Kurils). So the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty applies to those disputed islands also?

The truth is all those territorial disputes were resolved by the 2 atomic bombs and various WWII peace treaties/agreements such as the San Francisco Peace Treaty and Potsdam Declaration. For example, Article 2 (c) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty says "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands"

However, after the Cold War started, instead of withdrawing from Japan, the US changed its mind and wanted to maintain its military bases in the Ryukyus permanently and tried to keep Japan as its protectorate for as long as possible.

In order to make Japan totally isolated by its neighbors and remains helpless and fully dependent on the US, the US government then started to encourage/instruct Japan to violate all WWII peace treaties it signed with the US government and reclaim territories it lost to the Allied (especially China and Soviet Union). That's how Japan's current territorial disputes with its neighbors came about.

Then in 1956, the Soviet tried to win Japan over by giving 2 of the 4 islands to Japan to settle their territorial dispute, this was initially supported by the Japanese foreign minister, Shigemitsu Mamoru. However, when the Americans learnt about it, the US secretary of state, John Foster Dulles (the person in charged of drafting the San Francisco Peace Treaty during MacArthur time) quickly warned Shigemitsu that if Japan dared to comply with the San Francisco Peace Treaty to cede 2 of the 4 islands to Soviet Union, it could say goodbye to the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa) forever and the Ryukyus would then be part of the US.

As a result, Japan reclaimed all the 4 islands it ceded in the San Francisco Peace Treaty as demanded by the US and has not been able to conclude a peace treaty with Russia to this day.

As for the territorial dispute between China and Japan, if the US did hand over the Ryukyu Islands to the UN for independence as it agreed with China during the Cairo Conference and as what was stated in Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, then there will be no dispute. However, when Japan started to get in touch with China by around 1970, Henry Kissinger made the decision to transfer the administration of the Diaoyu/Senkakus to Japan but "without handing over their sovereignty" in order to create discord between the 2 countries.

However when even doing so did not stop Japan from establishing a peace treaty with China in 1972, Henry Kissinger became very angry and said the following:

"Of all the treacherous sons of bitxhes, the Jps take the cake. It's not just their indecent haste in normalizing relations with China, but they even picked National Day as their preference to go there"

And when Japan held a 2+2 meeting with Russia a few months ago, Obama retaliated by asking his Pentagon spokesman to make the announcement on the same day that the US had no plans to defend the Diaoyu/Senkakus with Japan.

As for the Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo islands), early US drafts of the San Francisco Peace Treaty explicitly recognized it as part of Korea, but in December 1949 - immediately following the establishment of the PRC, but before the outbreak of the Korean War, US treaty drafts reversed course and assigned the islands to Japan. Even though the actual San Francisco Peace Treaty did not mention the Dokdo islands, the US government did inform the government of South Korea that it regarded the Dokdo islands as Japanese without citing any reason.

From all the above, it is very clear that the US doesn't really care who the real owners of those islands are but it will forever use these territorial disputes it created for Japan after WWII to keep Japan as its protectorate for as long as possible.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Posted in: Japan's trade deficit quadruples on-year in March to Y1.45 tril See in context

I knew that Abenomics would only speed up Japan's decline even before it was implemented at the end of 2012.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: Defense minister puzzled by abnormal number of flights by Russian military aircraft See in context

It would seem that the Japan-Russia dispute won't be resolved anytime soon either.

The truth is Japan's territorial disputes with its neighbors were all resolved by the 2 atomic bombs and the various WWII peace treaties/agreements established at the end of WWII.

For example, Article 2 (c) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty says "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands"

And Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) says

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine."

However at the beginning of the Cold-war, the US government encouraged/instructed Japan to violate all WWII peace treaties drafted by the US government itself and to reclaim territories it lost to the Allied. (especially China and Soviet Union)

The main purpose of this instruction from the US government was however not to sabotage the sovereignty of China and Russia but rather to keep Japan totally isolated by its neighbors so that the US could keep Japan as its protectorate/puppet/cash withdrawal machine for as long as possible.

It is China that is refusing any talk with Japan. Japan has repeatedly said that the door to talk is always open and settlement through ICJ is welcome.

According to the Potsdam Declaration (Ultimatum to Japan), "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (US, UK, China and Russia) determine". And the price for defying the Potsdam Declaration is "prompt and utter destruction" as pronounced in the Ultimatum.

And according to the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and many other official documents, the Japanese government did accept the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan).

So it becomes real that Japan's territorial disputes with China and Russia created by the US at the beginning of the Cold-war will only be resolved once China and Russia show their resolve and ability to execute the Ultimatum (Potsdam Declaration) to Japan.

And from what I know, the defense minister of China has shown the resolve of the Chinese to crush Japan if a war breaks out and to execute the Potsdam Declaration (Ultimatum to Japan) that China co-drafted with the US to the US Secretary of Defense, Hagel during his recent visit to China.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Russia to boost military presence on disputed Kurils See in context

Why build a military base on these islands? No one was planning on seizing them.

Who knows? If a war breaks out in Europe over Ukraine, Japan and the US can always invade Russia from the east.

Wow...this is pretty petty of Russia.

It doesn't reflect the pettiness of the Russians but rather the total failure of Shinzo Abe's foreign policies.

Isn't it idiotic for Japan to offend all its immediate neighbors? Now, not only the Chinese, North Koreans, South Koreans and Russians hate Japan but it seems that even the Americans are very unhappy with Japan too.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.