national

3 more Chinese ships spotted in disputed waters

45 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

"If China's governance cannot catch up with its development, diversity will bring society more destructive power than vitality. In this scenario the West will win without any costs. Yet linking peace and prosperity is possible for China, if the PLA would cease inciting the population to hate and war and allow the Chinese colonies of Tibet, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia to revert to independent nations (without such overwhelming numbers of Han Chinese colonists in their midst). We love the Chinese, but we can no longer tolerate the war-mongering PLA. The entire world stands with the Chinese people, the Uyghurs, the Mongols and the Tibetans as they try to rid themselves of the PLA disease.

This is why we have decided on China's eventual dissolution into six separate countries, beginning with a free Tibet, an autonomous Xinjiang and an Inner Mongolia which will unite with Outer Mongolia into a new federated republic. Along the coast, the Han Chinese will separate into three independent countries based on their three principal rivers, thus becoming competitive with each other and helping to drive the world economy to new heights. In this way, the PRC will devolve into normal-sized countries, not a behemoth accounting for 1 out of every 5 human beings on the planet. Simply put, the PRC is too big for peace in the world on the long term.

Your article can spout any "happy" feelings you want. It is your diversity that is destroying China, because it isn't natural. It's imposed by the military. Tibetans do not think of themselves as Chinese, as they immolate themselves in protest. Uyghurs do not see themselves as Chinese, as they firebomb police stations. Mongols do not feel that they are Chinese, as they stalk and kill PLA soldiers in their homeland. In fact, they all think and feel and see that the Han Chinese are colonizing their native lands and subordinating them under Chinese institutions.

It is for these people that Mr. Abe was told what to do, which is to engage China in an Air-Sea Battle that does not harm the Chinese mainland, since we intend that the present Chinese factories and industries continue as strong as ever. We are simply in the process of eviscerating the PLA's military capabilities in the air and on the seas. That is our intention, plain and simple, with the Senkakus as the centerpiece of this game-changing chess move.

So, delude yourselves all you want, if you believe that China will be allowed to continue with its colonizing ambitions in Tibet, East Turkistan, Inner Mongolia. Japan is militarizing, as we insist it does. Japan is well versed in the arts of war against China, as the Nipponese military has proved repeatedly over hundreds of years. Now, with superior US training and sophisticated weaponry, the Japanese Navy and Air Force (regardless of what you call them) are well-positioned to annihilate their Chinese counterparts in the East China Sea arena.

Want to know what we told Abe that you're too afraid to report? Destroy China's bluster! Sink their entire naval fleet! Shoot down every Chinese aircraft! Leave them nothing with which to threaten the sovereignty rights of their neighbors...ever again. And prepare the way for the dissolution of the PRC into six independent countries within the community of nations. We welcome the Chinese people as responsible world citizens once the PRC is relegated to the historical past...the bad old days.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

China your on the highway to no where. Keep up this foolish school yard tactics and see what happens.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Again? No way, high way, China way.

Every time you guys coming, we spend our tax money.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If there is to be a conflict Mainland China will have to start it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Have you guys ever played a game when you were young: 2 persons face each other, and the one move first would be regarded as loser. This funny situation is just something like that!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The questions that we should ask are: do you believe that the islands did not belong to any country before 1895? So, if China can prove that the islands belong to China before 1895 then, the claims of control over the islands by Japan after 1895 will become irrelevant as Japan does not have the sovereignty, and so the terra nullius claim is invalid. Japan taking possession and control of the islands is, therefore, illegal. Do you think that Japan had fulfilled its due international obligation under the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation? The Potsdam Declaration (26 Jul 1945) stipulated that: "(8) 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." We, in this case, mean China, US and Great Britain. All the territories Japan has taken from China shall be restored to China under the Declaration. So, there is no doubt that Japan denies these post-war orders which also leads us to believe that Japan is also denying the atrocities committed during the war.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yes flowers. There are no evidence to suggest that China exercised effective control prior to Japan's incorporation. And yes. Japan did abide by the Potsdam as one of the parties, Republic of China, which had an embassy in Washington DC, agreed to the territories specified in the SF Peace Treaty which is basically confirmed in the subsequent treaty between Japan and ROC.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Republic of China, which had an embassy in Washington DC, agreed to the territories specified in the SF Peace Treaty >which is basically confirmed in the subsequent treaty between Japan and ROC.

How about China's claim over 80% of South China Sea which licks all neighbors EEZ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dotted_line. They said they have "historic" evidences. What do you think, nigelboy?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This is a closed case that China wants to reopen because they let go of land they thought of as worthless 100 years ago. After WWII the US occupied the lands of Japan... not China. When the land was returned, it was returned to Japan. If China had any claim they could have gotten the land after WWII, while they were dividing up Japanese colonies and lands. Or they could have made a claim for them when the US had control of them. But no, not until there MIGHT be natural gas or other natural resources there. Childish... Now they are saber rattling....go ahead... pull it punk... do you feel lucky? Do ya?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

This is a closed case that China wants to reopen because they let go of land they thought of as worthless 100 years >ago. After WWII the US occupied the lands of Japan... not China. When the land was returned, it was returned to Japan. >If China had any claim they could have gotten the land after WWII, while they were dividing up Japanese colonies and >lands. Or they could have made a claim for them when the US had control of them. But no, not until there MIGHT be >natural gas or other natural resources there. Childish.

Spot on, Dennis711! That's the whole story short!

On South China Sea front: When Philippines brought them to court, they said it is an issue between 2 sides, should be discussed bilaterally and not to go to any court. At the same time the bully keeps sending ships to the dispute area thousands miles away (which just 130 miles from the victim, well inside EEZ)!

Childish

Its correct for the later as well: a bad guy tries to grab a toy of a kid. When the kid cried aloud, the bad guy tries to cover the kid's mouth so that no one else can hear!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

nigelboy, so now we agree that if China has sovereignty over the islands prior to 1895 which I assume you meant to refer to effective control, then Japan’s control after 1895 is meaningless. China has plenty of evidences including foreign maps and documents that show China has sovereignty over the islands. Remember that even one piece of evidence can cast doubt of terra nullius claim that is why J govt has never mentioned this claim ever again. And, you are wrong in saying that Japan did abide by the Potsdam Declaration when the Declaration clearly says that Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we (China, US, and Great Britain) determine. It’s funny that you mentioned the SF Peace Treaty because both China and Taiwan were not invited to be part of it. Regardless of the existence of the embassy or being silent of the issue, Japan did not have the permission from China to control or administer the islands in the first place. Japan’s claims are full of holes. That is why Abe needs the US support and uses their alliance as the shield.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Dennis711, the assumption that the islands becoming an issue only after reports of natural resources is false and its main purpose is to stray us away from the facts. The facts are according to the Potsdam Declaration (26 Jul 1945), 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 (China, US, and Great Britain) determine. The islands are meant to return to China then regardless of whether China was silent of the issue. The US knew about this, that is why only the administration right is given to Japan and not the sovereignty. Also, remember that China kept a lid on the sovereignty for 40 years after reports of natural resources because of the words given by the former two leaders to shelve the issue. The issue was brought up only because J govt broke their words. If it was not because of the J govt’s trickery, the issue would have been kept under the lid for hundred more years.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

nigelboy, I only refer to sovereignty in my comment. Yes, Japan has effective control of the islands after 1895 but that does not mean that Japan has the sovereignty as evidenced in the treaty between the US and Japan which did not mention about sovereignty but only administration rights. The existence of the embassy in Washington and whatever subsequent treaty that was not recognized by China are irrelevant, what matter is Japan did not abide by the Potsdam Declaration. That is the fact.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Flowers,

Not just administration,

" Japan is willing to assume full responsibility and authority for the exercise of all powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands"

Some people call that "soverignty".

The existence of the embassy as well as the fact that both ROC and PRC never claimed the territory but had named them under Japanese name with maps indicating clear delination at that time clearly indicates that China did not think the islands belong to them. This is using pure common sense.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If you read the Potsdam Declaration, it specifically stated “sovereignty”. The US avoided the issue by not mentioning it. Regardless of the terms used the term “sovereignty” was not specifically stated and also the SF treaty is not valid anyway as China was not a party to it. Don’t try to use common sense in this case, the existence of the embassy is irrelevant and the silence is not the issue. I can also bring up a lot of things that should be common sense for China, but that’s beside the point. In the eyes of the world Japan did not abide by the Potsdam Declaration, pure and simple.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

False. The treaty defined the territories of Japan by simply including what was renounced. This is confirmed by a memorandum between U.S. and U.K. during the final stages of the final draft. As for the actual treaty itself, it is a valid and enforceble document between the signatories at that time. As for ROC, a separate treaty was signed whereby ROC recognized the SF Treaty as well as stated the territory that Japan agree to relinquish which did not include Senkaku. Game, set, and match.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

nigelboy, what was false? I merely stated the facts. You can come up with various excuses, but the facts remain that Japan did not abide by the Potsdam Declaration which stated 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 (China, US, and Great Britain) determine. You seem to agree that the Declaration is a valid and enforceable document; however, Japan had ignored it and said it was not applied in this case. Whatever treaty came after it is irrelevant as China was not a party to it, do you get my point?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

nigelboy, what was false?

"we (China, US, and Great Britain) determine"

Becase they (ROC, U.S. and GB) did determine. That's my whole point of the argument.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

nigelboy, you seem to have the wrong idea. If China did determine, they would not mention about the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration over and over in the media. I think this point is still not sinking in for some people. So, your point of the argument is out of the window.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

nigelboy, you seem to have the wrong idea. If China did determine, they would not mention about the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration over and over in the media. I think this point is still not sinking in for some people. So, your point of the argument is out of the window.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If China did determine, they would not mention about the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration over and over in the media.

??? When did this take place?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

nigelboy, here is the most recent link - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/25/c_132191476.htm. There have been many times that the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration are mentioned by China.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

nigelboy, here is the most recent link - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/25/c_132191476.htm. There have been many times that the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration are mentioned by China.

Figures. I thought you were going to give me an evidence of CHINA "mention(ing) about the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration over and over in the media" PRIOR to the discovery of underwater resources.

If that's the case, then you have not provided anything worthwhile.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Flowers,

Curious minds want to know why both ROC and PRC, from 1945 through the discovery of underwater resources (roughly 25 years), did not claim/assert ownership of Senkaku to U.S. or any other countries through diplomatic correspondences, memos, or even their own domestic media and went on further by referring to them as Japanese names and territory in their own published maps?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

nigelboy, now to feed your curious minds, here are some of the reasons why China was silent for awhile: China had internal problems and disfunctioning govt at the time; China was weak militarily and economically; Japan changed the names of the islands without announcing it; the islands were part of Taiwan, and Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration already confirmed the returns of the islands. There was evidence that Japan controlled the publishers of those maps during those periods; so what should be a clearer evidence is some foreign maps that showed the islands belong to China. I just read somewhere the other day that China and Japan did have some communications with each other about the islands during the period you mentioned, but I just couldn’t find the source right now. In any case the time span of 25 years is not enough to prove anything. You can see that China kept a lid on the sovereignty issue for more than 40 years relying only on the words between the two leaders.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

nigelboy Feb. 27, 2013 - 02:45AM JST Some people call that "soverignty".

Like who? It's not U.S., it's not China, It's not South Korea. Who calls it "soverignty'? Nobody.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I was hoping for logical reason, not some fantasy scenario where China was allegedly powerless where Japan was able to still control China and their own maps despite losing the war in 1945. The silence of 25 years speaks volumes as it confirms the logical conclusion that Japan did indeed incorporated them legally under terra nullius in 1895 and throughout 75 year period (before the discovery of underwater resources), China acknowledged the fact that it was Japanese territory by never asserting their claim as well as using Japanese names in their own map.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

This claim is already out of the window since it’s already proven that the islands were not terra nullius. It is illegal to incorporate the islands in the first place. Notice that Japan no long pursued this argument. And, now you come up with 75 year period and no longer 25 years! China has more than 300 years before the reports of the resources, and nobody asserted any claim either. So, China has the sovereignty and Japan has the effective control, but that control is weakening day by day.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Flowers,

It appears that you are not familiar with the concept of terra nullius under the international law.

And no. Japan still uses the claim.

"From 1885, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had been thoroughly made by the Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and by way of other methods. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had not only been uninhabited but showed no trace of having been under the control of the Qing Dynasty of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on January 14, 1895, to erect markers on the islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan. These measures were carried out in accordance with the ways of duly acquiring territorial sovereignty under international law (occupation of terra nullius)."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

flowers,

Silent meant "I agreed/lost", not "virtue" like you thought :D

China was weak militarily and economically

Because of that China then shrunk its map. Now China is stronger, so it wants to expand its the map in the regions using its own version "historic evidence". Is it the same kind of "historic evidence" that it is using for claiming Philippines and Vietnam's EEZ thousand miles away???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China has plenty of evidences including foreign maps and documents that show China has sovereignty over the islands

Sound familiar on South China Sea dispute. Are you sure that they are not fake? I said that because there are lots of fake goods being produced from China nowadays!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nigelboy, that quote must have been a long time ago because I remember reading it. Terra nullius means "land belonging to no one", which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty. All the evidences show that China has the sovereignty over the islands for over several centuries and has never expressly or implicitly relinquished the sovereignty, so the terra nullius claim by Japan is invalid. What should be more concern is Japan did not fulfill its due international obligation in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. As I said before that China side has mentioned about the Declaration and Proclamation a lot of times. When you come to think of it the rise of imperialism in Japan is the greatest threat in Asia and no longer the rise of China. Now I have a quote from Shen Shishun, a specialist on Asia-Pacific studies at Haikou College of Economics in Hainan province, saying that China's evidence is more solid and much earlier than Japan's, and the country had never stopped negotiating with Japan over the islands, even between 1895 and 1971. So here we are, China has been gathering evidence in every corner and eventually this dispute may be ended up in court or perhaps, a battle field.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

All the evidences show that China has the sovereignty over the islands for over several centuries and has never expressly or implicitly relinquished the sovereignty, so the terra nullius claim by Japan is invalid

No flowers. There are no evidence to suggest that China had any type of effective control in a form of exercizing administrative or judicial powers prior to Japan's incorporation. As stated in my previous post, a mere discovery, like identifying on the maps, are considered incomplete title under the precedent set forth by the Palmas Island case.

What you are doing here is repeating the same line that has already been answered for the parties of the Potsdam Declaration, namely U.S, British, and Repubic of China, signed a treaty acknowledging the terms.

As to your evidence that China has negotiated with Japan in regards to the ownership of Senkaku between 1895 and the time the underwater resources were discovered, I would like to see this. If you can't provide them, it's not even worth debating.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

nIgelboy, we are talking about sovereignty here and not effective control. China has historical and legal basis for sovereignty such as first discovery and use (as navigational aids and source of medical herbs), formal recognition of sovereignty by other sovereign states as shown by their maps and other documents, the cession of the islands as part of Taiwan in the 1895 Shimonoseki Peace Treaty, as well as Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. And, as I said again China was not a party to any later treaty, therefore, it is not valid. What you should ask yourself is whether Japan has complied with the Potsdam Declaration, if your answer is yes, then think why would China mention about it again and again? Also, I can only quote what I read so you can choose to ignore it.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Flowers. An effective control, such as in forms of exercizing administrative and judicial powers, are very much essential part of sovereignty which China simply just does not have, I'm afraid. And as stated in my earlier post, Senkaku was not part of the territory that was gained through Treaty of Shimonoseki. And finally, I really don't care China screaming about "Postdam Declaration" WAAAAY after the fact especially considering that People's Republic of China was NEVER a party to the said delcaration to begin with.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

nigelboy, you are right that control is a part of sovereignty but it is only a part. And yes, China had the control for centuries. So, as I pointed out before China has the sovereignty. And again, if China was not a party to the Potsdam Proclamation, why would China mention it again and again? It doesn’t seem right, does it?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

nigelboy, you are right that control is a part of sovereignty but it is only a part. And yes, China had the control for centuries

That's what is clearly in doubt. You stated "navigational" aides but what specificially? You stated "source" of medical herbs but where are the records of taxation or issuing harvesting license by the government? An acitivity of an individual alone is not a valid claim.

Finally, none of China's actions seem right in regards to many issues so if you're asking that there is a rational reasoning behind their irrational behavior, my answer is NO.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Now, this is not to ignite reaction, but rather thinking. In my eyes, China has already won this conflict. It already, on a constant basis, sends ships to the disputed area and the world gets accustomed to the idea. Japan behaves poorly. It barks, but it is seen that it can't do much, which is pretty bad, because countries with strong position never bark, but react instead. The US is not getting involved. This:

But speaking after White House talks with President Barack Obama, Abe also cautioned that "I have absolutely no intention to climb up the escalation ladder'.

unambiguously means, that Abe was told to step down and do not escalate, which he did. When the situation will calm down, China will make another small step forward. It is this dynamics of the process, which is favorable for China and dangerous for Japan. All semantics about ownership is currently irrelevant, as first of all Japan needs to physically secure the islands, over which it rapidly loses control.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

nigelboy, those were not activities of an individual but conducted by both foreign and Chinese people. Also, the evidences of the activities on the islands were later cleaned up by Japan. What actions by China not seem right to you? I’ve read the news from both sides and I don’t see any illogical actions by China, only what is expected. It would seem that China only reacts to the news or actions from Japan. Japan seems to be the source of all the conflicts and aggravation. J govt really wants the attention from the public for their political gains.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Konsta, you are right Japan is losing control. The next step for China is igniting a spark so that the US cannot get involved and then takes over the islands and protects them at all costs.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

nigelboy, those were not activities of an individual but conducted by both foreign and Chinese people

It's a collection of individual(s) nonetheless.

But as to the actions she should take, the first step is to stop this infringement and take your arguments to the ICJ. Do you see Japan infringing on Takeshima every frickin day just because Korea ignores Japan's pleas?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

nigelboy, you should read this article. It explains Japan’s behaviour toward Korea and China:

http://www.dismalworld.com/disputes/japan_south_korea_conflict.php

It has nothing to do with not acting like China but because it cannot act like China for the main concern of losing the alliance.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

From 1885 to 1895, Interestingly, it reinforces the idea that Japanese officials did not conduct the surveys rather they were private expeditions. If the surveys were privately run, then these action cannot be accredited to the Japanese goverment. As a result, Japanese standpoint contradicts its historical records. In the treaty, Japan was able to dictate all conditions in the Treaty of Simonseki. The exact wording of the treaty does not give a clue about whether the Senkaku/Diayou islands belong to Taiwan. The Imperical Decree nowhere mentions the Senkaku islands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Senkaku islands are a part of Okinawa. That was the position held by all parties including China in 1950. The Chinese government stated in 1950 that:

The Ryukyus "consist of three parts--northern, central, and southern. The central part comprises the Okinawa islands, whereas the southern part comprises the Miyako islands and the Yaeyama islands (Sento islets)."

When the United States returned Okinawa to Japan, the Senkaku islands, being a part of the Yaeyama islands, was returned to Japan as well.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

House Atreides Feb. 28, 2013 - 08:43PM JST The Senkaku islands are a part of Okinawa. That was the position held by all parties including China in 1950. The Chinese government stated in 1950 that: When the United States returned Okinawa to Japan, the Senkaku islands, being a part of the Yaeyama islands, was returned to Japan as well.

If that is the case, why did Japan PM Nakasone in say "the dispute shall be postponed"? In 1978, there was signing of a treaty between China and Japan for Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute. At the time, PM Nakasone accepted that "the dispute shall be posponed". This was first Japanese representative to admit that there was dispute over the islands. Today, Japan goverment states "there is no dispute". In 1972,

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites