Guru29 comments

Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration had been released before San Francisco peace treaty was issued. That means a newer document dominates the case according to the International law.

The fact is that the San Francisco peace treaty was drafted based on the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) and decisions made in other conferences such as the Cairo Conference and Yalta Conference. So your argument that the San Francisco peace treaty has invalidated the Potsdam Declaration is certainly wrong.

The article 3 has been effective since 1951

Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty says this:

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

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced to the following agreement made 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 for decolonization)""

So the fact is Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty has got nothing to do with the Diaoyu Islands which are located between 25 to 26 degree north latitude.

The treaty however says Japan must give up its claim on the Ryukyu islands, the long island chain in-between Japan and the Diaoyu Islands for the US to hand over it to the United Nations under the UN trusteeship system (UN system for decolonization) for future independence.

And 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 from 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—have all now attained self-government or independence, either as separate nations or by joining neighbouring independent countries."

1904 treaty simply relates to Korea's foreign policy with third party nations and it did not preclude Korea from engaging in negotiations and protest to Japan.

That's utter nonsense. Koreans who dared to disobey the Japanese during the 1895-1945 colonization were not even allowed to stay alive. Even Empress Myeongseong who disliked the Japanese was murdered brutally by them in her palace:

"The assassination, which took place on Oct. 8, 1895, left its mark in history for its viciousness and brutality. The writer Fusako Tsunoda in her book on the murder wrote, "Everywhere there were cries, 'Where is Queen Min?' The assailants approached a group of court ladies who were trembling with fear and slaughtered two of them who were especially beautiful. One of the victims bore a faint trace of smallpox on her temple, allowing the assailants to verify that she was Queen Min." Tsunoda also said, "After many years, one of the assailants confessed that they violently slashed and committed unspeakable atrocities on the body of the empress."

Japan thoroughly covered up its responsibility. The empress' body was burned and Japanese government propaganda portrayed the assassination as the result of a power struggle between Myeongseong and her father-in-law Heungseon Daewongun.

but if you didn't notice I haven't said word one about any territorial disputes

Thanks. I knew that you didn't talk about territorial dispute. But territorial dispute is certainly the main issue of this article.

the PRC received (reclaimed) Japanese-built infrastructure such as mines and railways in China

Those were probably built by Chinese forced labor with Chinese money anyway.

There was no money in the form of war reparations

Regarding the issue of war reparation, the official position of Japan is that the issue had been fully resolved by the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. And Japan will not pay one single cent of reparation beyond what the Americans stipulated in the treaty. That's exactly the reason why Japan has rejected all claims for reparation from China and Korea since both were not invited by the US government to sign the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan.

there wasn't a single unified China that could be a signatory of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

That's not true. The PRC has become the legal government of China since 1949. On the other hand, the ROC controlled only Taiwan which is less than 0.5% of China's territory by the time when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed

As for putting all issues of WWII to rest between the PRC and Japan, wasn't that the whole point of the Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China of 1972

That's very poor logic. Obviously the treaty resolved only issues that they managed to reach agreement but not issues that they couldn't. As for issues on territorial dispute, the1972 China-Japan treaty says this:

"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 (terms of surrender for Japan) says this:

"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."

If China thinks it has a case it should take it to the ICJ.

There is no point going to the ICJ since all legal issues of the dispute have been resolved with the signing of various WWII peace treaties/ agreements such as the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan), San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc. between Japan and the Allies.

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

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

San Francisco Peace Treaty

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

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced to the following agreement made 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 for decolonization as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty)""

So the case is closed as long as Japan will comply with the terms of surrender and the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

On the other hand, if Japan is unwilling to comply with the terms of surrender and the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it should sue the Allies and many other countries in the world that signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan.

As a start, Japan should nullify the following agreements/ treaties:

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."

1972 China-Japan treaty:

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

The 1951 Treaty means San Francisco Peace Treaty. The ruling says that the claims of Korean nationals should be resolved by government to geovernment negotiations

Regarding the issue of war reparation, the official position of Japan is that the issue had been fully resolved by the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. And Japan will not pay one single cent of reparation beyond what the Americans stipulated in the treaty.

Since the US government refused to invite China and Korea to sign the treaty with Japan, Both China and Korea have yet to receive any reparation from Japan. However, Japan did provide some ODA grants and loans to both China and Korea but they had stressed that the ODA aren't reparation.

As for the issue of territorial disputes, the position of Japan is that the San Francisco Peace Treaty and Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII) are both unfair treaties and they will not comply with these treaties. For example, Japan has violated at least the following articles in the treaties:

San Francisco Peace Treaty

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

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 (including the Ryukyu Islands but excluding the Diaoyu islands)...

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

"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."

Japanese politicians should have to freedom to visit Yasukuni shrine to homage to the war dead including to the war criminals.

But we all know that the war dead aren't buried in Yasukuni shrine but were buried at Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery in Tokyo which is just a short distance from the Yasukuni shrine.

So if Japanese want to pay homage to the war dead, they can always go to the Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery to do so as what the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense of the US government suggested.

The Yasukuni shrine does claim that it has managed to capture some 2.46 million souls of the Japanese soldiers from all over the world in the name of its living God and high priest, Emperor Hirohito. However, this was proved to be merely a lie when Emperor Hirohito announced that he was no God but just a human being and Japanese aren't a superior race in his human declaration in January 1946.

If China and Korea ignore the visits, it would not be a headline anymore. The question is if you respect the freedom of religion in another country.

The Chinese and Koreans definitely have the right to protest against the Yasukuni cult (formerly known as State Shinto or Imperial Shinto) since Japan used Hakko Ichiu (Holy war or spreading the Imperial Way), a doctrine of the Yasukuni cult as justification for invading and murdering Chinese, Koreans and other races in the world.

"From the standpoint of Hakko Ichiu, the Emperor of Japan is the Emperor not only of Japan but all the races of the world. Judging from the present condition of our Imperial Majesty, he is the Emperor of Japan alone at the present time, but his Majesty of Japan is the Emperor of the world, for the spirit of Hakko Ichiu has been the traditional principle of our nation. To have the Hakko liberated is the traditional desire of each Emperor of Japan" (Through Japanese Eyes, p.44, October 12, 1942).

According to the Way of the Gods, the Emperor is not to be worshiped exclusively by the Japanese alone, but is the Emperor of all the races of the earth. Japan is a divine land, and from here, the Emperor wishes to undertake his heavenly task of reconstructing one universal household embracing all mankind. Thus the slogan, Hakko Ichiu or 'The Whole World under One Roof' is used. And this is interpreted as the divine injunction to extend the Imperial Rule to the universe, to bring the whole humanity under one government -- under Japan!

"When one Privy Councillor asked how the statement contained in the Preamble of the Tripartite Pact that each nation should have its proper place in the world could be reconciled with Hitler's principle that only the strongest should survive, Prime Minister Konoye, Foreign Minister Matsuoka (great granduncle of Shinzo Abe), and War Minister TOJO answered jointly that only the strong nations were worthy of survival. If Japan, they said, should fail in her "grand mission of spreading the Imperial Way," it could not even be helped if Japan herself went out of existence."

Iwane Matsui in Nanking, 1937: "Now the flag of the Rising Sun is floating high over Nanking, and the Imperial Way is shining in the southern parts of the Yangtze-Kiang. The dawn of the renaissance of the East is on the verge of offering itself. On this occasion I hope for reconsideration of the situation by the 400 million people of China."

Prime Minister General Tojo: "People often refer to this as a dictatorial government, but I should like to make the matter clear… I am just the same as you.…It is only when I am exposed to the light of His Majesty that I shine. Were it not for this light, I should be no better than a pebble by the roadside." (Asahi Shimbun, February 6, 1943)

All of this started in 1895 when Japan occupied Senkakus. China remained silent all the time.

Actually it is Japan that has kept silent all the time. Did Japan make known its intention to invade China and Korea after decades of preparation? Did Japan inform China about its decision to grab these islands from China during the 1894-1895 invasion? Not at all. Japan merely demanded China to cede all islands in the east China Sea, that is Taiwan (further west of the Diaoyu islands) and all its subsidiary islands to Japan after defeating the Chinese navy.

The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty did not mention the Diaoyu Islands too. However, it did determine that Japan must give up its claim on the Ryukyu islands, the long island chain in-between Japan and the Senkaku/ Diaoyu Islands for the US to hand over it to the UN for decolonization. And since the Diaoyu islands are further south to the Ryukyu islands, therefore any logical person would have reached the conclusion that the islands had been returned to Taiwan (ROC) after the war.

And since China was having civil war with Taiwan (ROC), the only way for China to regain the Diaoyu Islands (subsidiary islands of Taiwan) which is further east of Taiwan is to Defeat Taiwan in the civil war.

Furthermore, the Ryukyu military government also kept China in the dark when it took the Diaoyu Islands and incorporated these islands into Ryukyu. This is actually a violation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty which defined the territory of Ryukyu to 29 deg north latitude whereas the Diaoyu Islands are much further south between latitude 25 degree 40 minute to 26 degree 00 minute North and longitude 123 degree 25 minute to 124 degree 45 minute East.

Proof is that China is unable to take Japan to the ICJ and win legally because they have no evidence.

Why should China bring the case to the ICJ when it had already been resolved with the signing of various WWII peace treaties/ agreements between Japan and the Allies such as the Potsdam Declaration, San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.?

Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for japan) :

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

San Francisco Peace Treaty

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg. north latitude (that's the Ryukyu islands but excluding the Diaoyu Islands which are located further south between latitude 25 degree 40 minute to 26 degree 00 minute North and longitude 123 degree 25 minute to 124 degree 45 minute East)...

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can be traced to the following agreement made 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 for decolonization as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty)""

So the case is closed as long as Japan will comply with the terms of surrender and the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

On the other hand, if Japan is unwilling to comply with the terms of surrender and the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it should sue the Allies (permanent UNSC members) and many other countries in the world that signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan.

As a start, Japan should nullify the following agreements/ treaties:

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."

1972 China-Japan treaty:

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

Isn't this the original map? Doesn't look as if Shin had any control to me.

Well, the Wikipedia and Waseda University version is a much well maintained version. And the map does depict the Diaoyu islands as Chinese territory as it is shown in the same color as that of China.

http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/ru03/ru03_01547/ru03_01547_0002/ru03_01547_0002.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1786年中国往琉球海路图2.jpg

It simply means that Japan did conduct due diligence to survey the islands

The Okinawa governor of that time said otherwise.

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/

Following the first on-site survey, in 1885, the Japanese foreign minister wrote, “Chinese newspapers have been reporting rumors of our intention of occupying islands belonging to China located next to Taiwan.… At this time, if we were to publicly place national markers, this must necessarily invite China’s suspicion.…”

In November 1885, the Okinawa governor confirmed “since this matter is not unrelated to China, if problems do arise I would be in grave repentance for my responsibility”.

“Surveys of the islands are incomplete” wrote the new Okinawa governor in January of 1892. He requested that a naval ship Kaimon be sent to survey the islands, but ultimately a combination of miscommunication and bad weather made it impossible for the survey to take place.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/19/opinion/global/diaoyu-3/diaoyu-3-blog480.jpg

Letter dated May 12, 1894 affirming that the Meiji government did not repeatedly investigate the disputed islands.

“Ever since the islands were investigated by Okinawa police agencies back in 1885, there have been no subsequent field surveys conducted,” the Okinawa governor wrote in 1894.

After a number of Chinese defeats in the Sino-Japanese War, a report from Japan’s Home Ministry said “this matter involved negotiations with China… but the situation today is greatly different from back then.” The Meiji government, following a cabinet decision in early 1895, promptly incorporated the islands.

Senkakus were claimed by Japan as terra nullius in January 1895.

If they were indeed "lands belonging to no one", why then is it that Japan had to invade China in 1894-1895 and destroyed the entire Chinese navy before they grabbed these islands on their way to capture Taiwan by force?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/First_Sino-Japanese_War.svg

And why do major Japanese maps such as the 1785 Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu drawn by Hayashi Shihei and 地球輿地全圖 drawn by 山田聯 in 1810 show the Senkaku/ Diaoyu islands as Chinese territory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1786年中国往琉球海路图2.jpg

And if they were indeed "lands belonging to no one", why then is it that these islands have Chinese names and Japanese continue to use these Chinese names up to this day or at least until very recently after the invasion?

So why was it kept from us?

There is no doubt Shinzo Abe would want to keep the negotiation secretive since he has denied that Japan has any territorial dispute with China and furthermore, he also said Japan would never negotiate with China regarding the dispute.

Thy can't take them by force without starting a war with the United States

If the US goes to war with its WWII ally, China to help the Japanese to regain what has been determined to be non-Japanese territory according to the various WWII peace treaties/ agreements. It will have at least the following implications:

-It is tantamount to the admission that the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan) that the US drafted with China is wrong.

-And since the Potsdam Declaration is wrong, the nuking of Japan for its rejection of the Potsdam Declaration is also wrong. Which means the US government should apologize to Japan for this crime.

-And since the Potsdam Declaration is wrong, the San Francisco Peace Treaty which was drafted based on the Potsdam Declaration and decisions made in other conferences such as the Cairo Conference and Yalta Conference is also wrong.

Taking all the wrongs together, it will means the US government admits its role in WWII is a total mistake. Do you think the Americans are so stupid?

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

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

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

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

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

Going to war with its WWII ally, China to help the Japanese to regain what has been determined to be non-Japanese territory according to the various WWII peace treaties/ agreements is a violation of those peace treaties/ agreements. I don't think the Americans will want to abolish all those WWII peace treaties/ agreements and throw away their WWII legacy just to help the Japanese to expand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg. north latitude (excluding the Diaoyu Islands which are located further south between latitude 25 degree 40 minute to 26 degree 00 minute North and longitude 123 degree 25 minute to 124 degree 45 minute East)

And as I said, this position of the US in the SFPT is not very different from the original agreement between President Roosevelt and Chiang Kai-shek that was made during the Cairo conference.

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

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

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

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

What international law is Shinzo Abe talking about when the issue had already been resolved with the signing of various WWII peace treaties/ agreements between Japan and the Allies such as the Potsdam Declaration, San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.?

Potsdam Declaration:

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

San Francisco Peace Treaty

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg. north latitude (that's the Ryukyu islands but excluding the Diaoyu Islands which are located further south between latitude 25 degree 40 minute to 26 degree 00 minute North and longitude 123 degree 25 minute to 124 degree 45 minute East)...

And this is the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as described by a disclosed US document:

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

1972 China-Japan treaty:

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

This Cui Tiankai is clearly saying that Japan needs to bow down to China...

He was merely advising the Japanese to respect and comply with the various WWII peace treaties/ agreements that Japan entered into with the international community that enabled the ending of WWII. These include at least the Potsdam Agreement, Japanese Instrument of Surrender, San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.

You keep pasting the same lengthy comment, but you fail to show what act of Japan is in violation of the treaties you list and why. I hope you answer in a concise manner.

Reclaiming of territories that Japan lost to the Allies according to the various WWII peace treaties/ agreements is no violation to you? Japan received two nukes from the Americans for incompliance to the Potsdam Declaration, how many nukes do you want Japan to receive this round?

In fact, at the end of war, before the atomic bombs dropped, before the Soviet army attacked, Japan army was on the way to be defeated.

Yes, Japan started to lose its war in China by the early 1940s simply because it was overstretched.

Emperor Hirohito actually believed Japan would need only 3 months to conquer the whole of China. However, after 50 years of invasion (1894-1945), Japan only managed to control the coastal region or eastern part of China. That's only because China didn't have a navy whereas Japan had one of the strongest navy in the world with around 10 aircraft carriers.

On land, the Japanese soldiers actually didn't have much advantage against the Chinese soldiers who were poorly trained, poorly equipped, and constituted of mainly newly recruited semi-literate peasants who had little knowledge of modern warfare.

“I think politicians in Japan have to realize this is the post-World War II international order. You cannot challenge that,” he said.

So he is talking about a very serious issue- Japan's violation of the whole series of WWII peace treaties/ agreements in a diplomatic way.

Japan has violated at least the following peace treaties/ agreements:

Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan):

"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."

Japanese Instrument of Surrender (agreement to the terms 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."

San Francisco Peace Treaty

Article 2 (c)

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.

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 the island chain between Kyushu and the Diaoyu islands)...

And this is the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as described by a disclosed US document:

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

China-Japan Joint Communique of 1972

"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."

Japanese are usually stunned when they discover that their financial institutions are closely linked with the yakuza. But I am even more surprised when I know that the Japanese don't even know that the LDP government is even more closely related to the yakuza.

In fact, the LDP is a political party founded with the drug money of the godfather of Yakuza, Yoshio Kodama. Yoshio Kodama as a major founder of the LDP, was earlier a major leader of Japan's Black Dragon/ Dark Ocean Society and practiced criminal activities in China and Korea before and during WWII. One of the notorious crimes of the Black Dragon/ Black Ocean Society is the brutal killing of Empress Myeogseong, the last Korean Queen in her palace.

According to the Far Eastern Economic Review (December 3, 1992, pg 18), the Yakuza were even involved in the selection of prime ministers of Japan:

"Now new information released by the Tokyo District Prosecutors Office in connection with the Sagawa Kyubin scandal suggests that leaders of Japan's largest yakuza gangs were involved in the selection of Noboru Takeshita as prime minister in 1987. A former chief inspector in the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department admits: "In the past politicians used the yakuza as bodyguards, but now yakuza have helped to decide on our prime minister.""

Even now, the family of the current Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe is also known to be closely linked to the Yakuza. Last year, a journalist even posted the picture of Shinzo Abe meeting with the Yakuza from Yamaguchi-gumi, Japan's biggest yakuza organization in the media.

Shinzo Abe's grandfather, Nobusuki Kishi, a Class A war criminal was known to be a partner of the godfather of Yakuza, Yoshio Kodama. And he is known to be responsible for the re-emerging of the Yakuza.

"Kishi managed to help return to centre stage a whole galaxy of prewar rightists and yakuza allies. Among them were two symphonious, and notorious, names -- Ichiro Kono and Bamboku Ohno. Kono was a part of many major LDP decisions, including those to name Prime Minister Kishi and his successor, Eisaku Sato" (Yakuza, pg 82).

With regard to US and UK, it is clear because of San Francisco Peace Treaty

That's just a lie. The San Francisco Peace Treaty merely stipulates that Japan must give up its claim over the Ryukyus (Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg north latitude) for the US to hand over these islands to the UN under the UN trusteeship system (UN system for decolonization) for future independence. The San Francisco Peace Treaty does not mention the Senkakus/ Diaoyu which is further south to south of 29 deg north latitude.

By the way, Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty actually does not deviate much from what was originally agreed between the US and China in 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 for decolonization as described in the San Francisco Peace Treaty)""

Therefore, it is clear that on the territorial aspects, the San Francisco Peace Treaty was mainly drafted based on what have been agreed between the allied countries in Potsdam Declaration and various other conferences held between them before the end of WWII.

US occupation of Senkakus under Okinawa trusteeship.

It is the UN trusteeship system, the UN system for decolonization. The trusteeship did help plenty of 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.shtmlAs can be seen from its website:

With Soviet Union, it is cleared by Soviet Japan Joint Declaration of 1956.

That's another lie. Not only that the Joint Declaration between Japan and Soviet Union has got nothing to do with the Senkakus/ Diaoyu, it doesn't supersede the Potsdam Declaration too. In fact, none of the four allied countries has nullified the Potsdam Declaration even until now.

With China, since China did not raise objection to occupation of Senkakus by Japan when China Japan Joint Communique of 1972 was singed, China is deemed to consent to Japanese sovereignty of Senkakus.

That's another lie. Both China and Taiwan (ROC) did lodge formal protest to the US for handing over the administration of Ryukyu and the Senkakus/ Diaoyu to Japan as the Senkakus/ Diaoyu is Chinese territory and the US ought to have handed over Ryukyu to the UN for future independence as agreed between China and the US in the Cairo Conference and according to the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

Further more, the Joint Communique of 1972 between China and Japan says this:

"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."

Japan maintained sovereignty of Senkakus because of Article 8 of Potsdam Declaration.

How is it so when Article 8 of Potsdam Declaration actually says the exact opposite:

"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."

Cairo Declaration prohibits territorial expansion of China.

Then why does Cairo Declaration say "All the territories Japan has taken from China shall be restored to the Republic of China." and not the other way round?

By the way, you have posted plenty of lies in your post. Why don't you go and learn some real history about Japan instead of telling lies?

China does not respect international laws.

Actually it is Japan that does not respect international laws since Japan's claim over these islands is a violation of all major WWII peace treaties and agreements such as the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII), Japanese Instrument of Surrender (agreement to the terms of surrender), San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.

The followings are some of the relevant clauses that showcase Japan's violation.

Potsdam Declaration:

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

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."

San Francisco Peace Treaty

Article 2 (c)

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.

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 the island chain between Kyushu and the Diaoyu islands)...

And this is the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as described by a disclosed US document:

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

When China Japan Joint Communique was signed in 1972, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai said he did not want to talk about Senkakus

They did talk about the sovereignty issues between China and Japan in general. And Japan did promise to comply with Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration which says Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine.

This is what the 1972 China-Japan treaty 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."

The Senkakus falls into this category. Did you miss that?

OssanJapan,

Of course any island that isn't Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu or Shikoku will fall under the category of the "minor islands as we ( US, UK, China and Russia) determine" as stated in the Potsdam Declaration:

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 Senkakus/ Diaoyu is of no exception. Of course there are jokes created by some Japanese fascists that tell you otherwise, but they are nothing but jokes. It seems you are really incapable of telling the difference between lies and facts, don't you?

The Allied powers interpreted "Kuriles" to mean the Kuriles that were originally Russian and were taken by Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904/05.

Since when did the Allies say that? Why don't you show me that exact webpage of the Japanese fascists who told you the jokes?

This is exactly what is written in the San Francisco Peace Treaty:

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.

So obviously the Japanese fascists misinterpreted the Kurile Islands as the southern part of Sakhalin which Russia ceded to Japan after the Russo-Japanese War.

nigelboy: Potsdam Agreement refers to three parties which are U.S., Great Britain, and ROC. Hence, the "we" part are exclusively for those three.

Wrong, Japan does accept Russia as a part of the Potsdam Agreement as is stated in 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."

From a international agreement standpoint, PRC has no chance.

You have no idea that PRC is the legal successor of China just like Russia is the legal successor of USSR?

The Senkakus were exempt from from the Potsdam agreement.

OssanJapan, that's just a lie created by the Japanese fascists to fool the illiterates and people who can't read such as you. Please read the following statements concerning Japan's territorial disputes with its neighbors carefully.

Potsdam Declaration:

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

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)..."

San Francisco Peace Treaty

Article 2 (c) 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.

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 (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands but excluding the Diaoyu islands)...

And the origin of Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as described by a disclosed US document:

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

The Chinese have three options to achieve the goal od taking the Senkakus.

Your options are all redundant since the issue has already been solved by the signing of the whole series of WWII peace treaties and agreements between Japan and the Allies as I posted here.

So China just need to remain Japan to show to the world that it is a country capable of honoring its own words and comply with the peace treaties and agreements it signed with the international community.

The U.S.'s word is good enough for the Chinese government but not enough for you?

Please do not bother to reply if you do not bother to read what I write.

As I wrote, what John Kerry said here can only fool the Japanese and no one else. The Chinese won't give a damn even if John Kerry say the US will nullify all WWII peace treaties/ agreements and help Japan to recapture all the territories it lost to the Allies in WWII such as the Senkakus/ Diaoyu, Ryukyu, South Kuril islands, Taiwan, Korea, Eastern China and the whole of south-east Asia.

Do you genuinely hope for a Chinese invasion of the Senkakus to find out if the United States means what it says?

The Japanese have given up its claim on the Senkakus/ Diaoyu, Ryukyu, South Kuril islands and many other territories in all major WWII peace treaties and agreements such as the Potsdam Declaration (terms of surrender for Japan in WWII), Japanese Instrument of Surrender (agreement to the terms of surrender), San Francisco Peace Treaty and etc.

If Japan attacks Chinese forces to regain the Senkakus/ Diaoyu, it will constitute a restarting of WWII. And I can tell you it is very likely that Japan will be nuked again like what happened when it ignore the Potsdam Declaration in 1945 or many of its nuclear power plants will be bombed.

The best the US can do is to prevent the Japanese fascists from acting recklessly, otherwise they might lose their quasi-colony after the war.

Guru28, there are no "fascists" in Japan's government today, just a bunch of annoying idiots in black trucks.

That's nothing more than a lie. If they aren't fascist, why would they worship at the Yasukuni shrine whose central belief is fascism and holy war (world conquest) in the first place?

If these fascists do believe that the Yasukuni cult is just a lie as exposed by its God, Emperor Hirohito in his human declaration when he declared that he is no God but just a human being and Japanese aren't a superior race and there is no need to go for holy war in contrary to what the Yasukuni shrine (State Shinto) preaches, why then do they continue to worship at the shrine fervently exactly like what the Japanese fascists have been doing since the beginning of the State Shinto period?

Japan has always been impotent as a military power

If Japan has always been weak like what you said, how then did it manage to invade Ryukyu, Korea, eastern part of China, the whole of south-east Asia, northern Australia and even defeated China and Russia, the two strongest countries in the whole of Asia since the beginning of the State Shinto period?

If the Yasukuni shrine (State Shinto) didn't brainwash generations of Japanese into brutal killing machines, you think the Japanese could have done that?

They can just bully all the countries around them and pretty much get their way.

Like what the US has been doing?

The fact is China had been the strongest country in Asia (or perhaps in the whole world) for at least one to two millenniums like what the Roman empire was to Europe. Could you tell us how Japan was bullied by China during the one to two millenniums?

The US has clearly stated it supports the status quo, and will NOT TOLERATE China trying to change through force the status quo. This position is new.

All talks and no action just to fool the Japanese into submission. As usual.

"This memorial is the closest equivalent (to Arlington). It honors Japanese soldiers, civilians, and support personnel killed on WWII battlefields but whose remains were never recovered by their families..."

It is pretty obvious that the main purpose of the two secretaries going there is to expose the lie of Shinzo Abe, the fascist PM of Japan who said the Yasukuni shrine is Japan's equivalent of the Arlington Cemetery.

I wonder why Japanese fascists such as Shinzo Abe often like to liken the Yasukuni shrine to the Arlington Cemetery?

While the Arlington is just a burial ground, the Yasukuni is a church or religion (State Shinto) where nobody is buried.

While the main purpose of the Arlington is to conduct funeral services, the central belief of the Yasukuni cult is fascism and holy war (world conquest).

So why do Japanese fascists like to equate the two?

Why do U.S. need support from Japan?

The US needs Japan only if it wants to take on China or Russia. On the other hand, it doesn't need Japan if it has no intention to fight with China or Russia or to keep them in check.

That's exactly the reason why the US released all remaining Class-A criminals from the Sugamo prison only shortly after the beginning of the Cold war, form an alliance with these fascists and even funded their political activities to help them to return to power through the LDP, a political party founded by the fascists, WWII criminals and Yakuza godfathers.

The US depended on these fascists to take on China and USSR because they are the natural enemy of the communists and the Americans were also wary of the Japanese leftists. However, over-dependence on these fascists also means the Americans have to tolerate fascism in Japan.

VERY well said OsanAmerica and JoeBigs, very well said indeed. Facts and truth are facts and truth, made up propaganda does not change either. thanks for clarifying that all so well.

Is this the standard Japanese reply when they are proven wrong?

Japan made no such agreement and was in no position to do so.

OssanJapan, the fact is Japan did make the following agreements with the Allies.

Potsdam Declaration:

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

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)..."

San Francisco Peace Treaty

Article 2 (c) 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.

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 (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands)...

Wrong, it was stipulated that Okinawa et al would become US Trusteeships. Not UN.

Obviously you didn't even bother to read. Please read Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty carefully before making such an ignorance statement. It is UN trusteeship system, the UN system for decolonization which was founded in 1945.

And 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