Take our user survey and make your voice heard.

kevininjapan comments

Posted in: Abe slams China at debate ahead of elections See in context

@House AtreidesJul. 04, 2013 - 10:51AM JST

Abe loves historians to tell him how to judge recent past, although he has no uncertainty about Diaoyu/Senkaku's much longer history.

The Chinese and Koreans have been trying to get at Japan since 1274 when they invaded Tsushima, Iki and Hakata.

Repeat a thousand more times, see if one more Chinese or Korean will nod in agreement.

Especially in the case of China, it is suffice to say Japan didn't matter much until very recently. For the sake of the argument, the southern islands of Ryukyu are very close to Taiwan. Did Qing bother to take over those after Taiwan was secured? You really have no idea why Ryukyu used to place itself under China's wing, do you?:-)

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Posted in: China 'highly vigilant' over Japanese fighters flying over disputed islands See in context

Dear JT,

Once, maybe just for one time, can you please provide more balanced news reporting? For instance, why is China's disputes with other countries brought up while Japan's got omitted? If those are so relavent, ow about China's record in successful settlement of territorial disputes through negotiation vs Japan's? Isn't this, also, maybe a lot more relavent? China has never rejected but welcome negotiations over all of the disputes you mentioned and what is the stance of Japan? Isn't this a good piece to be reviewed as well?

Maybe you have also noticed, unlike Japan, in none of the disputes has China used military but I guess this will make China look too nice. Let's just assume Japan is all peace even if her military jets are chasing after Chinese civilian plane far away from her territories, even disputed territories, should we say. Oh, has JT has ever reported that SDF jets do the same only when others', Russian's, fly a lot closer? Never mind, it didn't start with C after all.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

Posted in: China calls on Japan to meet halfway to improve relations See in context

CrisGerSanDec. 28, 2012 - 12:59AM JST

I am happy to hear meeting half way talked about but sadly it is empty rhetoric from China, as what they actually mean is that they want their illegal and irrational desire to seize the islands validated. I am confident that Abe will stand strong on this and China is showing actually the first signs of backing away and that she may realize that this is one steal that is never going to happen. Time to wake up and move on. There are lots of other places that China can grab more territory with less cost.

Who stole from whom?

Where is the sign of any side retreating?

The root cause of the territorial disputes with Japan is non other than the grabbing of others' land by Japan from the late nineteenth centuries. Japan can deny it to China, or South Korea or Russia. Japan can even deny that is how the US has come to have bases all over Japan. When Japan can not even decide where the US puts military bases on Japanese soil, when not even the US backs up Japan's claim of sovereignty over these islands, you'd think she should know better. But obviously no. Japan's new strategy is to become a bigger pawn for US policy in exchange for more support on the Diaoyu/Senkaku disputes. Neither Japan nor China gains much. East Asia loses but the US wins.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: China calls on Japan to meet halfway to improve relations See in context

PaulSDec. 27, 2012 - 11:38PM JST

China has no way to attack Japan short of nuclear. Getting across the ocean with massive amounts of troops, ammunition, supplies is easier said than done. If Japan was Vietnam, then it would be another story. They could march in. The Chinese population at large has been inundated with propaganda for so long and has no idea that the Japanese SDF could destroy the PLA in an evening )and maybe even send it back to the Cultural Revolution according to a very respected military white paper)

China has the 'no first use' policy on nuclear weapons. Once Japan changes constitution, I doubt it will ever come out with a similar statement. We shall wait and see.

Your assessment shows the total hypocrisy of Japan. 'the Japanese SDF could destroy the PLA in an evening'? If this is true, you honestly think th world should take Japan's image of peaceful nation seriously? Yet all one hears is the alarm against Chinese military buildup. Nobody seems to notice Japan has done that already, although techically it doesn't even have a military.

The top brass in China know and would like to cool things down as war is not an option.... even if the US didn't get involved. That's the truth. Japan has a well trained disciplined military, excellent attack fighter jets and top notch boats. If China wants to "compromise" while sending ships, airplanes to the islands and violating her airspace, Japan should hold her fire. If China keeps it up, Japan should attack and destroy the PLA. If the PLA is shown up to be weak, lying about strength, the Chinese population will have no mercy on the CCP

I hope there are cooler heads in Japan than yours. Military in any nation tends to brag a bit too much about their abilities. I have read the news you have quoted. There is no point in quoting more from the other side to make things slightly less certain, since war is not a likely option.

And no need for you to worry about the Chinese having no mercy on the CCP, either. Taipei has the same claim but only talks about peace. I hope you don't see the difference only in polity.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: China calls on Japan to meet halfway to improve relations See in context

hatsoffDec. 27, 2012 - 08:33PM JST

Meet halfway? Sorry China but you can go to hell. China kept pushing the Noda administration, and now that it has been replaced by a PM who is known to be hawkish China wants to play all nice.

China pused Noda or the other way around? Indeed, China's call should be viewed as negatively as possible.

No aggression needed from Japan, but absolutely no need to negotiate over something that belongs to Japan. China: why didn't you lay claim to the Senkakus when they were offered to you in 1945?

Japan has lost the islands in 1945. It is not Japan's place to ask how China deals with it. Japan had no adminstrative rights over it since 1945. When Beijing and Taipei raised the issue, their counterpart was Washington, DC. Tokyo didn't become part of it until the US transferred the administraive rights.

By the way, Japan still insists the islands they acquired in 1895 were terra nullius. Why haven't they come clean?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: China calls on Japan to meet halfway to improve relations See in context

JanesBlondeDec. 27, 2012 - 07:50PM JST

They would probably flatten the islands making them into air bases .... then we would all be in real trouble.

probably? You are probably in real trouble anway, if this probably shows how logic you can be.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: China calls on Japan to meet halfway to improve relations See in context

JanesBlondeDec. 27, 2012 - 07:44PM JST

If The Chinese Communist Party ever managed to get their hands on the islands they could then claim that everything in a 200 mile radius longs to them.

This would also put their disputes with the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia over other islands in a whole different light. It would also put them right in Japan and Taiwan's back yard, literally sitting between them.

JanesBlondeDec. 27, 2012 - 07:48PM JST

It would also give them a direct, open waterline of sight right across the Pacific to Hawaii and beyond.

Since you just lumped all the island disputes with China together as one issue, may I ask for your similar assessment on Japan over all of her disputes? What if she gets all of them?

In terms of access, there is enough open sea for any nation to sail to the Pacific.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Posted in: China calls on Japan to meet halfway to improve relations See in context

OssanAmericaDec. 27, 2012 - 09:14AM JST

Typical of China. The two are entirely different. That the USSR "stole" the northern islands is supported by the fact that the U.S. amd U.K. consider them "stolen" by USSR and kept by Russia.

Typical of China to have consistently appealed for negotiations, while Japan denied the very existence of any dispute at all.

Now even if your information is correct, are the views of the US and UK the law?

NOBODY buys China's lame argument that the Senkakus were "stolen".

Speak for yourself. Not everybody is as blind as you. Many nations have called for peace, but which country has supported Japan's terra nullius claim? In this case, some of the best supporting documents for the stolen argument come from non other than the archives of the Japanese government. It is too late to destroy them and too obvious to reintepret them .

Yes they did. The moment they decided to suddenly make a claim in 1971 they started the mess. And what aggression?

Unlucky for you, Taipei has said the same thing as Beijing. Try to square that one.

And it was not because Japan stole the islands in 1895? After 1945, Japan's territories were not decided by Japan. Japan loves to act as if somehow in 1971 Japan had got any sovereign rights over the Diaoyu islands, but really? Since you take the words of the US so seriously, hopefully you will find solice in the neutral stance of the US on the issue of sovereighty.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: China calls on Japan to meet halfway to improve relations See in context

OssanAmericaDec. 27, 2012 - 09:10AM JST

Yea I'm going to suddenly claim my neighbors yard, make a big fuss, then suggest he meets me half-way. After he agrees I'll wait a few years then claim the rest of his yard then suggest he meets me half-way.

Suddenly? Who suddenly changed policy over the islands and expected the other to swallow it for her (the other's) sake?

And who is bickering with all her neighbors?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: China calls on Japan to meet halfway to improve relations See in context

paulinusaDec. 27, 2012 - 08:42AM JST

Sourpuss: I agree. When has the Chinese government met halfway with any of it's Asian neighbors lately?

Many times. Not only words but also deeds. China has settled territorial disputes with quite a few countries. If you have no clue, does it become her problem?

BTW, can you answer the same question for Japan? When has Japanese government met halfway with any of her neighbors lately?

Between China and Japan, the one who has territorial disputes with all her neighbors is not China but Japan. The one who has NO record of successful negotiation with another nation over territorial disputes is Japan but not China.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: Japan's new envoy to China urges stronger economic ties See in context

fivegogo2003@yahoo.comDec. 26, 2012 - 04:29AM JST

China will not change and good luck on creating stronger economic ties when, The selective teaching of history in China – emphasising the brutality of foreign invaders and ignoring atrocities or mistakes by China’s leaders – is intended to boost the party’s legitimacy by cultivating a nationalistic, anti-western victim mentality among young Chinese.

The education at school always instils the idea that Japanese are evil people and if you turn on the television most of the programmes are about the anti-Japanese war,” “How can they possibly not resent the Japanese?

If only it were that simple.

Can you tell me how Ishihara calls China, foreigners or ethnic Koreans? How have Japanese media/people/officials responded? Do not tell me he is nobody. Remember this is the real boss of your Prime Minister on Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and the one who has been lauded and elected for speaking people's mind. .

Now you find me a match in China. Some heavy weight with the such foul mouth. Do that and I will give you some credit to be so one-sided.

'The selective teaching of history'?

Right, hasn't Japan just given schools more material on Senkaku?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan's new envoy to China urges stronger economic ties See in context

YuriOtaniDec. 25, 2012 - 02:47PM JST

Only surrender of Senkaku and then the rest of the Okinawa Prefecture will be acceptable. Once they have secured it the Peoples Republic of China will ask for even more. Though once they secure offensive bases they will demand the surrender of the Republic of China and not getting that invade.

Come on. Be more logical.

These islands were not part of Ryukyu to begin with. About the only honest part in the Japanese official narative on the history of the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands is that it did not belong to Ryukyu.

The Kingdom of Ryukyu did actively seek China's protection to fend off Japan until China became too weak to do the job.

You cerainly may try to put the two in the same category, which is also adopted sometimes by the Japanese media and officials. Japan has never been known as an honest player. We don't even need to look into how the wars and occupations with the neighboring countries started. Let's just stay with the case of taking Ryukyu. The 'job' was done in 1872, long before it became open and official in 1879. Mind you, I didn't have to make the connection if you had chosen not to.

The thing that truly amazes me is why you need to worry at all. Isn't Japanese is the land of monoethnicity,with one mind and one voice, from Okinawa to Hokkaido (or the four Nothern islands?), which explains the uniqueness and the natural inexhaustible strength of the nation? What on earth could shake, let alone break, such a solid rock?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. to deploy newest weapons to Asia-Pacific See in context

Nhan ThaiDec. 20, 2012 - 10:11PM JST

with all the bad behavior that china is to its smaller and weaker neighbors , and now it (china) must facing to the US force , that is deserved to the bullish , so wait and see what is the new game that china use to confront to the US force . china should taste the S H I T of the US and experience how the Asean feel while tasting its ...

Whose bad behavior? If you refer to Vietnam or Philippine, other ASEAN members are fed up. Vietnam claims half of the SCS and Philippine joined the fray only because of proximity in geography. They should be happy now. Nobody else wanted to follow them, so they are talking between themselves. What I don't understand is why they went ahead by themselves. They cried foul because China wanted bilateral negotiations. If they can work out a deal, it validates the soundness and practicality of China's approach. If not, they are hypocrites for calling China the core of the problem.

And what about your own bad behavior? Try using space to trick the system, is this some sort of high game also loved by the smaller and weaker neighbors?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. to deploy newest weapons to Asia-Pacific See in context

0 SaketownDec. 20, 2012 - 11:32PM JST

The facade is over for the Communist Regime of China. Let me remind or educate you all out that over 55,000 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. A War that was waged against Communist Aggression from North Vietnam who was Fueled, Armed, and Supplied by Communist China. America has not forgotten who played a major roll in all the deaths of those young Americans that have their lives for Freedom and Democracy. If Communist China had not played a key Logistical Roll in that War, then we could've Won and brought Freedom to South Vietnam. Therefore, Communist China must never forget that they were (and still are) a Key Accessory to Communist Aggression in the Asian Pacific Theatre of Operations. We have stealth Submarines, Ships, and Aircraft already in the region...and we will be watching.

To educate anyone maybe you need to answer where was the need for the facade to begin with.

And why Vietnam war only? What about the Korean War?

If your grand statement is to stand, how is COMMUNIST Vietnam getting on with the States recently?

If revenge is the name of the game, who should be the first target?

If anti-Communism is the goal, who is the easy target?

Yeah, keep watching.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: U.S. to deploy newest weapons to Asia-Pacific See in context

opexwellsDec. 20, 2012 - 05:13PM JST

you think your Chinese still are good as before, I am really doubt about it. you Chinese in an attempt to change the order of world that had been established since WWII.

Who has changed the order of world?

Who settled Japanese territories without China? At that time, Taipei still represented China.

Who now quietly nudges Japan to arm more and, if necessary, to modify the very constitution She wrote after the war?

On the territorial disputes with Japan, China has used Cairo Declaration. Is that not part of the order? Where is the American voice?

US is deploying more weapons and this is not an attempt to change? Why not five years earlier? Why not ten years later? Pentagon's game is on, so the other side must have been doing something seriously wrong?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: U.S. to deploy newest weapons to Asia-Pacific See in context

viking68Dec. 20, 2012 - 05:16PM JST

American's aren't interested enough in the Chinese to hate them.

Or to put it another more polite way, they are too busy with their own lives to hate the Chinese.

Chinese are probably even busier and they like America and Americans far more than the other way around.

When China was humiliated left and right, America was never as greedy as others. Everybody knows war reparation to the States was used instead used as scholarships for Chinese students to the States. Then there was WWII. Even with the communists, there is no real hatred. The US criticizes China all the time, but it also accommodates most Chinese immigrants, including those corrupted officials. How can one hate a country or people like that?:-)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: U.S. to deploy newest weapons to Asia-Pacific See in context

Nhan ThaiDec. 20, 2012 - 09:22PM JST

america is a really police officer of the world , and is really a reliable friend to its friends . not like china , who is always taking advantage from its fade friends and bullying friends as it has a hard time to take advance .

Ask the Vietnamese forty years ago. Who fought side by side with them till the end and who abandoned them. And how Vietnam has paid back to each side. And who has given islands to Vietnam.

One thing you got right. America is the police of the world. No betrayal will be possible.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: U.S. to deploy newest weapons to Asia-Pacific See in context

@tangula51Dec. 20, 2012 - 04:37PM JST

Uhh, hope you walk the walk.

US will do it anyway, for China is not its vassal state. But is there really so much need to turn it into positives? The more Americans deploy, the faster/better Chinese grow?:-)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: China commentary questions Abe's sincerity See in context

I have no idea what your above sentence means but are you under the assumption that it's Japan that's causing the Tapei/Beijing alliance to not materialize in regards to Senkaku when Ma himself, from the beginning, stated that he would not work with Beijing? How does that work?

Just as Japan was not allowed to balance its relationship with the US and Asian neighbors, Ma can not risk losing American support. As an American ally, he can borrow the text from Beijing word for word if he is lazy, but he will nonetheless deny any alliance. For Beijing, it is somewhat awkward, but so long as Taipei sticks to its constitution, Japan's effort in framing this as some sort of communist imperialism won't work. That is enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: China commentary questions Abe's sincerity See in context

nigelboyDec. 20, 2012 - 03:19AM JST

What is postponing the filing of Takeshima case to ICJ has to do with China's avoidance of the word "ICJ"?

Because it shows this is more than just the issue of ICJ. Any truly neutral party will welcome that. But even after Japan posed to do so, the US cut her off, preferring the status quo. This is in sharp contrast to the disputes between Japan and China (Beijing and/or Taipei). Here the US has not minded the tension, so long no hot war starts. Given this, unless both Japan and China refuse to let it stay front and center of their relationship, tension will be high anyway. So Japan's filling on Takeshima is a good indicator.

I have no idea what your above sentence means but are you under the assumption that it's Japan does causing the Taipei/Senkaku alliance to not materialize in regards to Senkaku? How does that work?

Did you mean Taipei/Beijing alliance? If so, Japan certainly wants to avoid it.

Although Beijing has called for open alliance with Taipei, Taipei can't and won't do it for a host of reasons, which Beijing doesn't mind. The negotiation of fishing rights is to address the most pressing concern from Taiwan.

Now comes in the background: they have had close to twenty rounds of talks already, always ending with failure due to Japan's refusal to budge. This is the first time that Japan has actively sought to talk.

Japan's hope is to remove the pressure and somehow put a wedge between Taipei and Beijing. But Taipei has reiterated they are firm on sovereignty. I doubt they can risk retreating on that front for the sake of fishing rights, which they know might be negated any time if they are stupid enough to give up the sovereignty claim. It will be made into a favor by Japan that can be taken away. Therefore Japan can plan and Taipei has played along, we will see who will claim what afterwards.

Not really. All China has to do is sign the Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory and Japan has no choice but to comply with the jurisdiction and the judgement. (i.e. Whaling case with Australia). Japan is already a signatory.

Applying your logic, all Japan has to do is be truthful about how they got the islands instead of always starting the sentence with Chinese greed for the resources underneath.

As I said, China has proven record of settling territorial disputes through patient negotiations. Why should China follow your wish? Don not forget China is the one who has called for negotiations and their offer has never been taken off the table. To only Japan who thinks they have the control therefore don't even want to call the dispute as it is.

There is also the issue of whether Japan will agree this time. Any nation, including Japan, can back out of Article 36 (2) (I hope I've got the number right.:-)) any time they want. Here the US is a nice example. The States decided since 1986 to do it case by case. Has any official statement come out on this? No statement made by individual politician counts.

Knowing China, No. Given an inch, take a mile approach seems to be the norm of Chinese diplomacy.

I hope you do know this is what others say about Japan as well. With such mistrust, no wonder nothing can be done. We continue with this pattern of no-dispute-what-so-ever with the call for more military build-up.

What on earth would make you say that?

Because South Korea controls Dokdo, they constantly remind themselves NOT to make it look like a disputed island.

My understanding is that China seeks to negotiate this issue "bi laterally" but much of the ASEAN nations refused (including Phillipines recently) who opted for joint negotiations with the relevant nations.

Yes, Philippine is trying very hard. Vietnam too. But not all of them. Malaysia and Brunei have declined to join force. Philippine has this law which makes any boat entering its water liable with huge fines and/or jail. In recent years they have been quite liberal in their attitude with the Chinese. For anyone who has followed the activities down there, it is not too surprising what China eventually did on The Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island) .

By the way, Philippine didn't bring it up until 1990s. Shall I expect a bit more sympathy for China from you this time?:-)

It's simple Kevin. If China seeks for Japan to recognize this as a "territorial dispute", they could make it better by using a U.N. body platform.

Only if it takes one wing to fly. China would if this is their only choice. But they clearly don't think so. We will see time is on whose side.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: China commentary questions Abe's sincerity See in context

gelendestrasseDec. 20, 2012 - 02:45AM JST

China is never sincere about anything except the accumulation of riches and territory by any means - including abusing their own people. That's a dictatorship for you. I have to agree with Abe on this one.

With broad brush strokes like this... oh well, who cares~:-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: China commentary questions Abe's sincerity See in context

nigelboyDec. 20, 2012 - 01:34AM JST

That's irrelevant to what we are discussing.

Why not? Do as I say but not as I do?

What Taipei is hoping for is a fprogress isheries agreement between Japan. There already is in place a fisheries agreement between China and Japan.

What Taipei hopes for is more recognition as a political entity. Fishery rights are the only thing they can do. Japan chooses to negotiate with Taipei and acts tough to Beijing to break any possible alliance. That still doesn't change the fact Beijing and Taipei share the same stance.

So getting back to my original point, both nations (China and Japan) assert ownership with none giving an inch. Hence, the best course of action is to take this dispute over to ICJ.

That requires they both wish so. I am not sure I'd blame them if don't. The US doesn't like it. China has a judge sitting on it as well but has never used it in all previous territorial negotiations. If peace is paramount, one can say no Chinese plane should enter the air space, the other will counter no Japanese military jet should add to the mess.

Now China supposedly only wants Japan to acknowledge the dispute. From your point of view, isn't it more sensible for Abe to say so then the never-let-an-inch line? Theoretically if Japan starts to negotiate with China, it will put tremendous pressure on Korea to sit down as well. On the SCS, China has signed something with others. The hinge point there is about whether China negotiates with others one to one or together. Japan likes to bring up the SCS with the Diaoyu/Senkaku, but the difference in reality is not trivial. BTW, on this Taipei's map is larger than Beijing's. Beijing has given some to Vietnam already and look what they get in return. (Vietnam is Japan's strategic partner now. Good luck, Japan.:-))

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: China commentary questions Abe's sincerity See in context


I lost my reply. My short answer is Japan's fear is largely unfounded. Nobody will replace the US for foreseeable future.

Neither side seems to very rational.

In terms of resources, China is not the only one to worry. For instance, India will have more people than China very soon. From its attitude to neighbors to taking up resources, is there any real difference? Even now India wants to take part in the SCS.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: China commentary questions Abe's sincerity See in context

NissanNostalgiaDec. 20, 2012 - 12:37AM JST

Japan started surveying the islands around 1880 and incorporated them as part of Okinawa in 1894. Is there any history or evidence of Chinese interest to these island prior to 1968? I only have Japanese history books, Does someone have Chinese history books to answer this?

You might as well go check the Japanese official version first.

It was discovered in 1884.

It was REPEATEDLY surveyed;

It was incoporated in Jan. 1895 once its status of terra nullius had been confirmed, therefore this is not related to the treaty of Shimonoseki and not part of the loot that Japan is bound to return to China by its unconditional term of surrender in 1945.

China only saw it for its potential oil reserve in 1968.

Chinese counter argument:

Chinese found them long ago. The earliest written record is in 1403. The possession continued up to 1895. Evidence for the control during the late 19th century can be found in many official books.

There was only one survey by Japan in 1885. The decision to shelf the issue documented in the Japanese archive is not to affect the relationship with Qing with such minor issues. In Jan 1895, the Japanese cabinet stated the situation has changed and no hurdle remained to prevent their move.

Since this was not made public, China saw it as part of the treaty of Shimonoseki. In any case, the cabinet decision in 1895 would never have happened if Japan had not won the war the year before. So the Cairo declaration applies.

Japan has lost sovereignty in 1945. Since it was controlled by the US up to 1972, whether China has talked to Japan or not didn't matter. When the issue was finally brought up, China, both Beijing and Taipei, talked to the US. It was the handover of the administrative right to Japan that got Japan back into the picture.

Ever since then, the US is officially neutral on the sovereignty issue. She has never said anything about the long gap. As her vassal state, there is no use to go against the master. The US is just following the British in divide and rule.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Nikkei surges above 10,000 for 1st time in 8 months See in context

JapanGalDec. 19, 2012 - 08:21PM JST

And do what? Start paying people to deposit money?

Don't know. Is it not supposed to make people feel they had better spend than save, leading to the upward tick of the economy? It's been proposed by some, including Martin Wolf. Now we will get to see whether this will work in practice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: China commentary questions Abe's sincerity See in context

SentimentsDec. 19, 2012 - 05:53PM JST

Chinas comments are as imperialist and xenophobic as ever. I think the main question is what China is doing to calm down and build new better relations. Nothing. They want Japan to crawl to them and pay tribute. Same as in the old days.

History can help if you get it right.

In those 'old days', why would Japan want to lower itself? Maybe you can look at the nature of the relationship a bit closer. If I remember correctly, Japan was more eager to 'pay tributes' than China. With those pantry tributes, Japan got a whole lot more in return. At one point, China had to limit these activities to once a decade or so.

Now you see what China is like? Who is the greedier party?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: China commentary questions Abe's sincerity See in context

Nhan ThaiDec. 19, 2012 - 09:39PM JST

china is as same as others ,

Uhh, most here tend to say China is different. China is uniquely aggressive. Add the word 'communist' and you have the complete profile of a classical bad guy.

The only awkwardness is Beijing is not alone or unique. On these islands Taipei thinks the same. On the overall Japanese attitude toward history, Korean might be even more pessimistic. And all of a sudden 'communist' is not that powerful any more.

it has been aggressive as it believes its self stronger than the other , but to face the strong one china is as chicken as same other . in fact : every ones knows how product made in china is , of course china must know that even better than others , so china is chicken S H I T to japan that is so normal , i am not wondering why

You got it upside down again. China thinks it has given too much. China assumed Japan agreed its effective control is on the basis of the dispute being put aside. Now that Japan unequivocally said there was no such agreement or understanding at all, what else to do?

By the way, Vietnam claims half of the SCS and nobody seems to wonder why. (That is why, even without China, Vietnam has disputes with just about everybody else.) Nobody seems to remember Vietnam is still communist as well. And how many wars Vietnam has had with its neighbors since independence (by whose help?)

Talk about Hypocrisy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: China commentary questions Abe's sincerity See in context

Kazuaki ShimazakiDec. 19, 2012 - 08:23PM JST

Thus the closest thing to a peaceful solution that's not a complete Japanese defeat

Nobody is that naive to try for a complete Japanese defeat. That is probably why China has asked Japan to recognize the existence of a dispute. And this is still too much.:-)

I read somewhere else the reason that Japan won't even give this little bit is that they know how it would work. That is the strategy they tried with the Russians. The first step is to ask for the recognition of a dispute, then push for more.

The funny thing is, this issue was brought up and put aside over 3 decades ago between them already. At that time, Japan asked and China said 'let's leave it to the future generations'.

Somebody has asked about 'honor' to China, yet even some in Japan acknowledged conversations related to the islands were not included in writing on the Japanese side. So much for honor,

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: China commentary questions Abe's sincerity See in context

yosunDec. 19, 2012 - 09:06PM JST

Why not china and japan cut diplomatic relations right away since they hate each other so much?

Because neither can afford it. Hence the FTA negotiations among China, Japan and South Korea still took off.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: China commentary questions Abe's sincerity See in context

In_japanDec. 19, 2012 - 09:51PM JST

My only question is who made china #2 country? Just think, if all these companies never moved to china.. (Sony, Panasonic, Fujitsu, Canon, Honda, Suzuki, Toyota, Mitsubishi, ...1000s of them...

Should we go a bit further back then if you love it so much?

In 1895, Japan didn't just get Diaoyu or even Taiwan, do you have any idea of the size of money China paid? How about 2-3 times of the annual GDP?

Oh, I forgot, that is what Japan deserved, while what you brought up is completely different.

This is, I assume, all these companies have donated year after year to China, something they would never have done if they had put their money elsewhere.

Conclusion: Japan single-handedly rebuilt China for China's sake and now all we get is the ungrateful Chinese, right?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Recent Comments


Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.