Japan scrambles fighter jets to meet Chinese plane

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

  • 8

    MarkG

    China is constantly antagonizing the Japanese government showing china's greed and selfishness. At some point one side will take it to the next step....

  • 1

    some14some

    defence officials said, declining to give further details

    let's wait for details.

  • 9

    Tamarama

    I can't really follow China's logic. Are they just trying to annoy Japan? They are clearly duplicitous in word and deed - they talk of peacuful relations whilst sending ship and plane to the area on a daily basis. The US has stated fairly unambiguously which side it is on if push comes to shove, so are they ultimately trying to annoy the US? Whatever they are thinking, they sure are talking a whole pile of cr@p right now.

  • 14

    nigelboy

    The China's logic here is that

    "We sent a propeller plane while those evil Japanese scrambled fighter jets!!" to basically paint to their own people that Japan are agressors.

  • 8

    Saketown

    Let me guess, the Chinese "Observation Plane" was there checking out the weather right?

    Just like their Sonar...errr..."Weather Buoys" that they dropped in the Senkaku Waters the other day to "Observe the Weather Conditions".

    Ok China, here's the weather around the Senkaku Islands: Cloudy to Partly Cloudy with a good chance of Get The Hell Out of Here!

  • -27

    Asianhometown

    The Islands belong to China so Chinese have the right to in and out of the area as they wish.

    Japan has already lost and China has won since Mr Abe cannot stop the Chinese from entering the islands territory. Even Obama avoided mentioning the Island dispute during the news coverage with Mr Abe's Washington visit.

    I think Japan will have a hard time holding on to the islands. Japan should give back the islands to China per WWII terms of surrender. Japan's economy and peace in the region is worth more than war.

  • 7

    sappquest

    Maybe they are testing tokyo's response time to know how far their real jets will get before interception in the event if a real war.

  • 9

    OssanAmerica

    AsianhometownMar. 01, 2013 - 07:54AM JST

    The Islands belong to China so Chinese have the right to in and out of the area as they wish

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LetterofthanksfromROCconsultoIshigakijimain_1920.jpg

    http://richter.pixnet.net/blog/post/18881937

    No, I don't think so.

  • 0

    hellmaster

    a field trip

  • 2

    Cortes Elijah

    @Asianhometown

    Ah buddy boy. Last time I checked Japan held the islands. Possession is 9/10ths of the law which makes the islands Japanese. Where is your support? From what I know history and even the Chinese said it belongs to Japan. So either the Chinese gov is lying now or lying back then? Choose!

  • 6

    House Atreides

    It said the Y-12 propeller plane DID NOT enter airspace around the Tokyo-controlled islands known as the Senkakus, which Beijing claims as the Diaoyus.

    The Chinese plane flew away before entering Japanese airspace. Still, the Chinese should be reminded that in 1950 their government stated 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)."

  • -9

    tmarie

    Can the media stop using "scrambled"? It makes them sound disorganized and in a perpetual state of panic and chaos.

    The cat and mouse games continue. Wish both countries would grow up and solve this through discussions instead if the fit for tat we're seeing. China, in this case, is most certainly behaving like a toddler.

  • 0

    splksgt96

    China is like a pest that won't go away. You shoo it away and keeps on coming back.Either it is too thick headed or just it just wants its ass kicked.

  • -2

    Ewan Huzarmy

    "We sent a propeller plane while those evil Japanese scrambled fighter jets!!" to basically paint to their own people that Japan are agressors

    It said the Y-12 propeller plane did NOT enter airspace around the Tokyo-controlled islands known as the Senkakus

    No painting necessary, Nigel dear boy.

  • 8

    FightingViking

    I always thought China was one of the biggest countries in the world ? Don't they already have enough land ? Take care of the land you already have and leave those tiny islands to the country that bought them from the previous Japanese owner.

  • -7

    Redcliff

    @ Cortes Elijah

    There is a different between possession and administrative rights. Administration of islands does not give you the right to possession, you merely administer on behalf of the owner. Under the law purchasing an asset without both parties consent called into question the legality of the purchase and thus the intention of the purchaser. The purchase therefore is non and void.

  • 0

    SauloJpn

    This is one way to burn a lot of public fund!!!

  • -2

    smithinjapan

    Is Abe tolering it?

  • -10

    FPSRussia

    This plane didn't even enter the airspace claimed by Japan. Who send fighter jets to intercept a prop plane. This aircraft is not fitted with weapons systems nor is it capable of Mach speed.

    Japan appears to be extremely aggressive.

    I shouldn't be surprised though. When my friend got stopped on his bike they sent 2 cars and 3 guys on scooters totaling 7 officers for one guy.

  • 0

    sfjp330

    Redcliff Mar. 01, 2013 - 08:57AM JST There is a different between possession and administrative rights. Administration of islands does not give you the right to possession, you merely administer on behalf of the owner. Under the law purchasing an asset without both parties consent called into question the legality of the purchase and thus the intention of the purchaser. The purchase therefore is non and void.

    Who is the owner? And what law are you talking about?

  • -5

    WilliB

    One little propeller plane, and the JDF sends jet fighters.... quite an expensive response for these pinp ricks, which are going to continue. The Japanese should think of a more appropriate response. How about a dro ne which sh oots down intruders automatically, and notify the Chinese side about it? Then it is up to them...

  • 2

    Ichiro20

    aaaaannnd China again..

  • -1

    Patric Spohn

    That's a tiny private airplane. No need to scramble 3 fighter jets. Like going after a mosquito with a bazooka :)

  • -5

    yosun

    All the posters repeat their points again and again here, however no one, either PRC or ROC or JP, can persuade each other into their believing. I confirm these islets belong to Taiwan(ROC) without doubt. The only difference with other two is that Taiwan suggest all involved parties should peacefully cooperatedly share resource there, it's difenitely not worthy to conflict for it.

  • 6

    OssanAmerica

    yosunMar. 01, 2013 - 09:40AM JST I confirm these islets belong to Taiwan(ROC) without doubt

    Yes yes you've repeated this a hundred times as you ignore the fact that Taiwan is not a sovereign country and China considers Taiwan as well as any claims Taiwan has, to be part of China.

  • 5

    No Miso

    @asianhometown

    The Islands belong to China so Chinese have the right to in and out of the area as they wish.

    Not everyone in China believes the islands are Chinese. There are Chinese maps showing them listed as "Senkaku" and as Japanese. The really funny thing is that he Chinese government is trying to buy up the old copies of this atlas very quickly, but the Chinese people owning them are refusing, saying they'll get a higher price from potential Japanese buyers!!

    http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/130228/chn13022808440001-n1.htm

  • -7

    Tony Ew

    @FPSRussiaMar. 01, 2013 - 09:12AM JST

    This plane didn't even enter the airspace claimed by Japan. Who send fighter jets to intercept a prop plane. This aircraft is not fitted with weapons systems nor is it capable of Mach speed.

    Japan appears to be extremely aggressive.

    I shouldn't be surprised though. When my friend got stopped on his bike they sent 2 cars and 3 guys on scooters totaling 7 officers for one guy.

    You're right! Time and again you see Japan try to use massive intimidating force to scare off the opponents. The world now see a real pattern: Japan is a very aggressive country, just any dispute and you see Japan is willing to use a club when a ruler will do to punish the other party!

    In this case, why is Japan so fired up? The smallish Chinese plane have not even entered the disputed air space so you can see how willing Japan is to show her muscle! But here is what I suspect: The Chinese propeller plane is on a mission to make sure the buoys the maritime ships dropped are still there. Remember these are 'scientific' buoys for weather observations and Japan should not touch them until POTUS Obama give the green light! So Japan actually looks very foolish for misinterpreting what the Chinese plane is up to!

  • -3

    Tony Ew

    @yosunMar. 01, 2013 - 09:40AM JST

    All the posters repeat their points again and again here, however no one, either PRC or ROC or JP, can persuade each other into their believing. I confirm these islets belong to Taiwan(ROC) without doubt. The only difference with other two is that Taiwan suggest all involved parties should peacefully cooperatedly share resource there, it's difenitely not worthy to conflict for it.

    I agree with you completely! I had said all along legally and through UNCLOS law, the islands belong to Taiwan. But because Taiwan is not in UN, very difficult to make headway, so need to make careful physical moves to exert her rights. I had said the Taiwanese have no spine, totally useless, unwilling to fight for their own rights. Taiwan can make an end run around the Japanese and Chinese claims by forcing them to co share with Taiwan simply by making enough noise.

    Let's see what the Japanese do if Taiwan send a small plane there instead of China. Will Japan dare to force it away or shoot it down?

  • 3

    viking68

    Japan doesn't initiate these encounters. So, what if Japan sends F-16 capable of defending their territory.

    If China were really serious they would do one of two things: (1) take the case to the international court, and (2) start sending something more than a prop plane and buoys that can force Japan out of the area.

    China will not because: (1) they know their case is without merit or they would have already taken the case to the international court, (2) China's navy is probably the most professional military force in China, but it knows it will not last long against the U.S. Navy. So, why start something you know you will lose: militarily, economically, and politically.

    Keep the F-16s coming. And go forward with the plans to base fighters on one of the small islands nearby with an airfield. China will crap when they notice it takes only a few minutes before a Japanese fighter is up and bearing down on them.

  • 3

    viking68

    China is just trying to keep their toe in the door by sending their ships and plans, and hopes Japan will stop shutting the door on them. They are acting like a pest or child who seriously wants Japan's cookies.

    Administration means you have legal control. Beneficial control is close but separate from legal control, and Japan has been exerting control over the benefits of the islands. So, Japan has been exerting complete control over the islands.

    The only question is of prior owners or the soundness of title. That can only be solved by a fair court, which doesn't include a one-sided decision by China's government.

    This whole thing is just to give the Chinese population a scapegoat to deflect domestic criticism of and actions against the Chinese Politburo. Chinese would direct their anger inward if they didn't create a villain of Japan.

  • -1

    Cortes Elijah

    Lets keep it simple. Japan has the islands. We administer them, they are in our territory so get off china. Your not going to bully Japan out of this!

  • 2

    lachatamber

    shoot it down

  • -4

    Tony Ew

    @Cortes ElijahMar. 01, 2013 - 11:06AM JST

    Lets keep it simple. Japan has the islands. We administer them, they are in our territory so get off china. Your not going to bully Japan out of this!

    Hold it! Just because Japan pull a wool over your eyes for so very long does not mean the islands belong to Japan. It's like somebody being put under a vodoo spell for many many years and until somebody else jolt people up, they still walk around in a confused state of mind thinking Japan is the owner of the disputed islands.

    I hope recent China 'intrusions' forces people to become less sheeple and dig deeper and learn the facts instead of being colored by Japanese textbooks.

    BTW I said the islands belong to Taiwan!

  • 2

    toannds

    I hope recent China 'intrusions' forces people to become less sheeple and dig deeper and learn the facts instead of being colored by Japanese textbooks

    The facts are: neighbors already waken up. They are forced to enter an arm race to protect them self from the so called "the peaceful raise" of China which is eating their EEZ piece by piece.

  • -2

    Peter Payne

    It should be stated that it's unambiguously the position of the U.S. government and Allies after WWII that these islands, as well as Dokdo/Takeshima, are Japan's. Korea declared the Rhee Syngman's Peace Line and siezed Dokdo in 1952 (arresting 3000 Japanese fisherman and killing 44, source Wikipedia) and has brainwashed its own people ever since.

    Korea's case is very weak. China's is less so (they at least mapped/named the islands back in the day).

  • 0

    GJN48

    This is to mark the 70 year anniversary of Capcom's 1943.

  • -4

    Tony Ew

    @toanndsMar. 01, 2013 - 11:53AM JST

    I hope recent China 'intrusions' forces people to become less sheeple and dig deeper and learn the facts instead of being colored by Japanese textbooks

    The facts are: neighbors already waken up. They are forced to enter an arm race to protect them self from the so called "the peaceful raise" of China which is eating their EEZ piece by piece.

    People just don't understand China behavior very well. When China ask for bilateral negotiations with the neighbors, what do they do? They hide behind Clinton strategy to negotiate under the ASEAN 'group purchasing power' hoping China will give them a discount under duress. But people don't realise China had being bullied from mid 1800 till mid 1900 due to Opium poisoning and poor Ching dynasty governance. Against this backdrop the new China is determine never to be pushed around again. Hope this explain why China is taking such a negotiation stance which so far had not being accepted by the other party, so don't blame China for all the disputes!

    Japan should come to her senses and negotiate with China over the islands with the eyes towards oil and gas explorations besides fishing. China is willing to meet Japan half way but Japan refuse to negotiate. This stalemate will last forever and nobody wins.

  • 0

    neobios

    Either China does it intentionally or not, the trade off like fuels and such for the planes is not that well on Japan side as I believe at least two jets are being sent off only to find the target went back home while no violation has been made but more importantly, nothing much done to prevent such issue.

  • 2

    viking68

    Make no mistake iRobin, China has sent fighter planes. Read the news!!! And not the news hand fed to you by the Chinese government. The last report I read said China sent fighters to tail a U.S. AWACS plane in international waters, to which Japan chased them off with F-16s. and . . . China's WAR PLANES retreated.

    TonyEw, there is no stalemate, unless you count China's inability to do much about the islands except ignore facts and precedent, scream and point fingers, drop some buoys, and send some boats.

    So, yes, China's plans are not going anywhere. China then retreats out of the area because they know it isn't theirs.

    It is hard to call this a stalemate when Japan has control of the islands...

    China doesn't have the stomach to make the whole world mad at them just like they don't want to make their own population to be informed.

  • 1

    viking68

    iRobin, "in the eyes of the other nations". Please name one other nation that supports the dispute and isn't claiming the islands for themselves. Korea, Taiwan? They don't support China's claim, only China supports China's claim. The Chinese government lies all the time. In fact, it is hard to recall something they have said that is true. China has no credibility outside of China and Chinese, and the only people who believe them are those reading Chinese propaganda.

    NEWS from "other nations" tend to be neutral about the dispute without knowing further facts. They are only reporting on the dispute itself rather than lending any credibility to one side or the other.

    Make no mistake, everyone can tell why there is a dispute, China is trying to grab territory all over Asia that is NOT CHINA's.

    You don't seem to have a command of the facts and keep falling back on what you are learning through propaganda.

  • 2

    Nessie

    China must have the bestest weather forecasts in the whole wide world.

  • -1

    yosun

    OssanAmericaMar. 01, 2013 - Yes yes you've repeated this a hundred times as you ignore the fact that Taiwan is not a sovereign country and China considers Taiwan as well as any claims Taiwan has, to be part of China.

    I've already answered you this question hundreds of times but not this time because it's off-topic here.

    Tony EwMar. 01, 2013 - Taiwan can make an end run around the Japanese and Chinese claims by forcing them to co share with Taiwan simply by making enough noise.

    We're still trying to cool off everyone's head instead of heating it up.

  • -4

    Tony Ew

    @viking68Mar. 01, 2013 - 01:24PM JST

    Make no mistake iRobin, China has sent fighter planes. Read the news!!! And not the news hand fed to you by the Chinese government. The last report I read said China sent fighters to tail a U.S. AWACS plane in international waters, to which Japan chased them off with F-16s. and . . . China's WAR PLANES retreated.

    TonyEw, there is no stalemate, unless you count China's inability to do much about the islands except ignore facts and precedent, scream and point fingers, drop some buoys, and send some boats.

    So, yes, China's plans are not going anywhere. China then retreats out of the area because they know it isn't theirs.

    It is hard to call this a stalemate when Japan has control of the islands...

    China doesn't have the stomach to make the whole world mad at them just like they don't want to make their own population to be informed.

    Whatever occurs in international air space, Chinese fighter jets trying to learn something about US AWACS and JP jets coming to chase them off, this is not that unusual. US/Russia play same game too, recently off Guam. If US jets come near Chinese air space like near Hainan Island even though in international space, same thing happen. Remember Hainan Incident 2001? Even though it is international air space, if too close, the other party will attempt to chase the enemy away. They all understand the rules of engagement. Nobody get into a shooting incident, they just probe each others capabilities and readiness.

    Japan got possession of the islands but cannot benefit from it. No oil/gas drilling, so it is a useless possession. Fishing I doubt JP do it too or if they do, China do as well. No tourism development there either, the islands are a dead zone. This is what I call a stalemate, Japan got useless possession except on behalf of US to keep China from parking her military assets too close to Okinawa US bases!

    What China did with all these ship and air space 'intrusions' are just little dances to stake sovereignty claims should China decides to go to ICJ. Remember the UN Commission on Continental Shelf ruling expected in the third quarter of this year and China is confident she will win. So all these 'intrusions' are a prelude to ICJ submission if things goes well for China!

  • 2

    Indranuj Dey

    typical Chinese technique to see the response and keep the issue burning. they engage in similar activity near the border with India.

    @tmarie: "scrambled" is a military term signifying quick response to a threat. nothing to be irritated by.

  • 5

    hidingout

    I hope recent China 'intrusions' forces people to become less sheeple and dig deeper and learn the facts instead of being colored by Japanese textbooks.

    No reason to put intrusions in quotes there tony.

    And "the facts" say that the communists have but two options. Give up, apologize to the Japanese people and work to repair the relationship with the country most responsible for helping china climb out of their third world cellar. Or keep intruding until someone decides to smack them down properly.

  • 0

    hidingout

    China is seeking for being the greatest nation in the world

    Hahaha .... Oh lmao .... that will never happen.

    If the communists don't start watching their manners they might just find themselves back in the third world.

  • -2

    Flyfalcon

    Tony Ew Mar. 01, 2013 - 02:09PM JST

    Japan got possession of the islands but cannot benefit from it. No oil/gas drilling, so it is a useless possession. Fishing I doubt JP do it too or if they do, China do as well. No tourism development there either, the islands are a dead zone. This is what I call a stalemate, Japan got useless possession except on behalf of US to keep China from parking her military assets too close to Okinawa US bases!

    Very well said! Japan has been administering that islets since 1972. In theory, they control the Islets. However there are no commercial development or mining exploration there. Frustration and Insecurity comes from J nationalists. They are landlord in name only who is impotent to develop the property because of neighbors objection to the district council. They have no confidence about legal settlement either. Media will make a lot of noise. truth is Japan or China will never start the first strike.

  • 2

    viking68

    Tony Ew: The continental shelf argument is non-binding and based on some psuedo-political science. The argument means that any territory that is part of China's continental shelf should be China's, which will probably include the main island of Honshu. The continental shelf argument will not do anything except perpetuate China's stance.

    China should just take the case to the international court so that China will stop wasting everyone's time. I personally will accept that decision, but China will never accept a decision contrary to their policy.

    iRobin, now you are using ad hominid attacks on grammar. Yes, China is trying to claim other's territory all over Asia. But then, you know this is true, and it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone that China's supporters are ignoring facts that are staring them in the face.

    Oh, the only reason countries (businesses in those countries) are doing business in China is because they don't play fair. They poison their population and land, and people work in factors for very little money. So, businesses can make more money by using China's workers. It isn't about anyone actually liking China. Businesses are ruthless at times and are willing to do anything to make money. China is just stable enough for this to continue, but if China starts shooting, expect it all to end badly for China when no body wants to spend money to have things manufactured there. China relies too much on exports to spoil that party.

    You still don't seem to understand reporting on a dispute vs. siding with a dispute. Chinese media takes sides all the time. If they don't, they can get in serious trouble. One reason I would hate to be in China. You may be surprised, but not all countries work that way. Reputable news sources report on a dispute, and obviously there is one here. If that is China's goal to make everyone know there is a dispute, congratulations!!! However, reporting on a dispute doesn't legitimize the dispute.

    I don't think anyone has a command of the facts, the least of all China or me. But I know the U.S. had possession of these territories and gave them to Japan. So, I am fine with Japan's claim.

  • 1

    viking68

    Tony Ew: the intrusions work if someone doesn't chase you off. The legal term is called Adverse Possession. You have to stay on the property and not get chased off.

    China's little intrusions go by another legal name, Trespassing.

  • 0

    JoeBigs

    China is playing a game, the same game it played with the Phillipines.

    The PRC is the greatest threat to world peace.

    Time for article 9 to go bye bye and time for Japan to do what other nations should have done a very long time ago, stand up to the paper tiger and swat it like the fly it is.

  • 0

    JWGRAY

    China has everything to lose by not continuing their drive by assaults on the statusquo. The whole idea is to wedge into the status of a given territory and each time they drive by they feel it is pushing the wedge in further giving them a greater claim. It is not.

  • 0

    viking68

    No I am not attacking the writer. I am attacking ideas, and in some cases the source of those ideas (and the source of those misconceptions).

    China is claiming territories it should or should not have possession of. Determining who possesses the islands would be the role of a court to decide where evidence is subject to the Rules of Evidence to determine whether the evidence is reliable enough to decide the matter. I don't have the evidence, but China appears late in the game to claim the islands. So, it looks like it is trying to claim something owned by another country. China is doing this in Vietnam and the Philippians, and the ASEAN countries do not like it.

    Courts are the only place where things can be fair. Public opinion isn't fair. A one-sided argument, like the one offered by China, is not fair. A court is the only place. If the evidence doesn't support China's claim, too bad. It is the only non-violent solution to the dispute.

    I don't know why the U.S. gave the islands (to include Okinawa) to Japan. Japan actually banned the native language in Okinawa. It didn't set well with me, but I have since met other Okinawan's who seem ok with the arrangement. The island give away waspart of the Carter Presidency. I don't know or understand the reasons for their actions.

    I don't think the U.S. was a robber in WWII. The U.S. took these islands at a substantial loss of life against a known enemy at the time hell bent on waging war on the U.S.

    The real problem here is that NO one really possessed these islands, to include China and Japan. The links to these islands are tenuous at best for both parties. The U.S. owned the islands after the war because at the time they were considered a part of the captured territories of Japan and decided that a friendly Japan was better than a hostile and communist China, so it gave the islands to Japan after they were conquered by the U.S. The U.S. is not like China, we don't really want to possess Japan or govern another people. We did keep Guam to protect ourselves from both Japan and China. China on the other hand has a history of marching in a taking over other countries by force.

    Be honest and answer this question, Why is China interested in these islands? My answer, China is interested in the islands only is because they think there are resources to be had. Before that became a potential, China said the islands belonged to Japan.

  • 0

    MADCOWS

    Chinese plane was lost due to doggy Chinese radar information, Chinese are climing rights to these islands based on doggy chiniese GPS coordinates

  • -3

    Asianhometown

    China will continue to go in and out as they wish since Mr Abe will do nothing about it. So yes unfortunately China has won. Last year Japanese and the Taiwanese coast guards had a water cannon fight with each other. Japanese coast don't dare attack Chinese ships with water cannons. Why? Japanese coast guard is willing to fight with Taiwanese because they are weak but will not attack Chinese coast guards or hinder their activities fearing it will escalate the problem. So who has won and who is tolerating and sitting by and watching as Chinese boats freely go in and out.

  • -1

    Octagon

    The real problem here is that NO one really possessed these islands, to include China and Japan.

    Taiwan really possessed these islets according TAIPEI TREATY signed together with Japan in 1952 according US witness. Taiwan or ROC requested US for temporary administering Islets due to the threat from PRC. US betrayed their trust and transfer administration rights to Japan in 1972.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TreatyofTaipei

    China is interested in the islands only is because they think there are resources to be had -

    One more thing is they do not like to be surrounded by other nations arm force. In my view, they want to get the strategic comfort zone. It is a land-lock nation and only east coast has maritime exit. Senkaku is so close to their east coast.

    However that dispute has existed since 1968 and never become media hot topic until 2008. If there is no media inflammation, things will be cooler from both sides.

  • -2

    Redcliff

    @ Viking 68

    " The only question is of prior owners or the soundness of title that can only be solved by a fair court which does not include a one sided decision by China"

    This not just some commercial case that you have just purportedly to suggest. This would most probably be dealt at the ICJ and is not as you have naively commented that the decision is a one sided decision by China. There are also Tribunals and Arbitration where appropriate and conducted in an International environment. Other facts involved UNCLOS, EEZ and the Continental Shelf and its Prolongation which I am sure China will include this in its favour. Japan might take the equidistance concept but will surely strongly opposed by China in favour of a equal distant. These are only speculative but the it would be definitely dealt in an International court and not as you so purported that of a one sided decision.

  • -2

    Redcliff

    @ Octagon

    I agree with you that in 1952 under the Treaty of Taipei Japan had surrender and returned the Senkaku/Diaoyu Island to ROC, thus under such scenario the action of Japan in forcing the issue of owning the Island called into question the legality of its action in the rejection by tearing up the 1952 Treaty of Taipei it had signed and honored till last year.

  • -2

    Redcliff

    @ Viking 68

    " The US is not like China we don't really want to possess Japan or govern another people..... China on theother hand has a history of marching in taking over other countries by force.'

    Sound like lack the knowledge of history. US including seven other western nations occupied various parts of China during the Qing Dynasty These eight western nations tried to divide China among them. So your claim of US not trying to possess other country and try to govern other people is totally off the mark. You also commented that China has a history of marching in and taking over other countries. Would you like to name some of the countries that China had marched in and took over them.

  • -2

    Redcliff

    @ Viking 68

    " I don't think anyone has a command of the facts, the least of all Chinese or me. But I know the US had possession of these territories and gave them to Japan. So I am fine with Japan's claim"

    First you claimed that no one has a command of the facts that include all Chinese and you. You then turn around and claimed that you know the US had possession of the these territories and gave them to Japan. What sort of logic you try to throw at us. Sound like your clear think is in question.

  • 0

    neobios

    China and Japan is currently engaging a cold war not just due to those islands but as we come together, looking at this issue deeper, it's about becoming the regional power of East Asia and Japan holding such title for many decades met its match for the first time.

    No doubt both can be great trading partners but when it comes to such position, conflicts happen from time to time until one of them falls way behind and perhaps financially collapse if taken way too far.

    Who would win the war you may ask, I prefer to wait and see rather than spending too much time speculating but looking at the current economic situation in Japan, it might be sooner than I think.

  • 0

    Redcliff

    @ Viking 68

    " You don't seems to have a command of the facts and keep falling back on what you are learning through propaganda"

    You seems to think of your self that have the command of the facts. Why don't you list them out and share with us.

    I have just ran through all your comments and you are no different, that is, you are also learning through propaganda.

    • Moderator

      Readers, please keep the discussion civil.

  • -1

    Octagon

    Redcliff

    It is not only about Tapei treaty but also Taiwanese fishermen have been fishing there for centuries. Geographically it is 200 km away to Islets. It is a backyard of Taiwan according the map.

    Japanese debated that Islets belong to Okinawa Island chains. According history, Ryuku or Okinawa was annexed by Japan in 1874. Senkaku or Diaoyu became part of Japan in 1895. My question is if that Islets was part of Okinawa, what took it so long for it was becoming Japan territory? Why was many years gap between 1874 to 1895? If we follow all dots along the Okinawa chain, it will reach to Hainan. Is Hainain also part of Okinawa?

    Legally Japan surrendered Allied force nation ROC or Taiwan before PRC was well established. When San Fransisco treaty was signed both ROC and PRC were not present because of civil war. Therefore it was a back room deal without all parties present. Taipei treaty was legitimate and more reliable.

    Morally administrator is trustee who is looking after the property until legal settlement has reached. It is not the sovereign ownership. Trustee can manage the asset. It can not sell or transfer it.

    Geographically, Legally and Morally, I do not think Japan or China is not rightful claimants.

  • 0

    bello420

    Each time that China sends her ships into the Japanese territorial zone and Japan literally does nothing about it, it's consistently staking its claim to what they call the Diaoyus and they will not stop until Japan gets tired and finally gives up. This is one case where Japan really has to grow some cojones and show China that it will not tolerate Chinese infiltrations or dubious claims to these islands. Japanese ships wouldn't be let to within 20 km of a Chinese island for sure!! How about parking a couple of JMSDF destroyers there and order them to take whatever forceful actions as necessary to "defend" the Japanese sovereignty of these islands? Or is Japan scared?

  • -1

    avigator

    Yes islands belong to Taiwan, which belonged to China before the Japanese force themselves into a war with China so they could also grab Taiwan. Read please. http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4085/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf Thanks.

  • 0

    Funnybonesup

    Islands would be a very good place to burn tsunami debris. No Chinese come then.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Lot of misinformation that's been repeated over and over.

    First, the argument that it belong to China before is FALSE. China, whatever "Dynasty" it was once was, NEVER had an effective control (exercised administrative, judicial, and legislative powers) of the islands pursuant to international customs and laws. As the Palmas Island case illustrates, a mere discovery alone is an incomplete title and that the claim by the sovereign that exercises authority is greater than a title based on mere discovery. The said precedent is very much similar to the Senkaku dispute.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Palmas_Case

    Second, Treaty of Shimonoseki, in which Qing ceded Taiwan and other islands DOES NOT include Senkaku for they were incorporated by Japan previously by Okinawa. The subsequent Treaty of Peace in San Francisco and Treaty of Taipei does not in any way, shape, or form had Japan "renouncing" Senkaku.

    Finally, the as to China's recent submission to Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, the commission itself does not decide territorial disputes nor does the decisions handed down effect the soverignty issue of Senkaku. As to disputes involving CLCS, it's heard by, for instance, International Tribunal for the Law of Sea (ITLOS). In this matter, there was a case last year between Myanmar and Bangladesh in regards to the maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal but the court pretty much decided that the** equidistant line **would be observed when there is an overlapping EEZ. Hence, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that China won't be able to exercize their rights beyond the median line. (i.e. status quo where equidistant line is observed between mainland China and Senkaku) Hence, Japan objected to China's CLCS application simply because their extension request infringes on Japan's EEZ. Therefore, under UNCLOS (Article 83), when such request overlaps as in this case, the law specifically states that you need a official consent from the other party (meaning Japan which China has not gotten a permission).

    In other words, China has it backwards in that they first must establish the soverignty of Senkaku which involves ICJ or agreed upon Aribitration organ.

    The 50 cent brigade needs to come up with a new material instead of repeating the same defeated arguments.

  • 0

    Tony Ew

    @hidingoutMar. 01, 2013 - 02:29PM JST

    I hope recent China 'intrusions' forces people to become less sheeple and dig deeper and learn the facts instead of being colored by Japanese textbooks.

    No reason to put intrusions in quotes there tony.

    And "the facts" say that the communists have but two options. Give up, apologize to the Japanese people and work to repair the relationship with the country most responsible for helping china climb out of their third world cellar. Or keep intruding until someone decides to smack them down properly.

    Tell your buddy who started this mess to kow tow to China and China may just stop 'intruding'!

    Until POTUS Obama give Japan permission to reclassify 'intrusion' as intrusion, the Chinese can come and go as she please. IN FACT China will have gone deeper into the air space and land on the islands IF US is not messing around that area.

    China's penetration into the sea and air space = rightful claim to ownership, not an intrusion, even if POTUS Obama says so!

    US is having the last laugh at Japan for being caught in this hot potato. Why? US does not want to hang on to the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands AND still want to protect her Okinawa bases, so, US need 'somebody' to do the dirty work for her AND the dirty work falls on Japan! See, you get to administer the islands, but it is a DEAD ZONE, you cannot benefit from it economically while US benefit from it militarily, using the islands as a BARRIER to keep China militaries further away from US bases in Okinawa. Japan should THROW OUT US from Okinawa so this Senkaku/Diaoyu disputes can be solved to serve both the Japanese and China. I am pretty sure China will be MUCH HAPPIER with Japan when US is removed from Okinawa and will be more than willing to share the resources with Japan. This is a practical solution to solve Japan and China's energy needs.

    Go ahead, change your Constitution, just no nukes, US move to Guam and can still protect Japan from 'behind'

  • -1

    Tony Ew

    @JoeBigsMar. 01, 2013 - 05:23PM JST

    China is playing a game, the same game it played with the Phillipines.

    The PRC is the greatest threat to world peace.

    Time for article 9 to go bye bye and time for Japan to do what other nations should have done a very long time ago, stand up to the paper tiger and swat it like the fly it is

    Perhaps you can enlighten some of us why you think China is wrong? There is such a thing called ' being put under a vodoo spell' In this case by sweet talking politicians.

    Every moves China do so far is 'beautiful' Seriously! Look, just a small propeller plane not even inside the so called Japanese sovereign air space. No military assets to intimidate others, call for bilateral negotiations. What more do you want?

  • 0

    Tony Ew

    @viking68Mar. 01, 2013 - 03:28PM JST

    Tony Ew: the intrusions work if someone doesn't chase you off. The legal term is called Adverse Possession. You have to stay on the property and not get chased off.

    China's little intrusions go by another legal name, Trespassing.

    No sir! Trepassing refers to intrusion into the space when there is UNDISPUTED ownership, just like a house property title/sovereignty clearly attached to it. In the islands disputes, not only China, Taiwan also make 'intrusions'. China is not the only 'naughty boy' here. Can you honestly say Japan have title to the islands Free & Clear when even US does not 'confer' sovereignty to Japan? As long as people behave like sheeples this problem will never be solved!

  • 0

    Konsta

    Sovereignty or not, the islands are now under Japanese jurisdiction, which is not under dispute (even by Chinese), by the definition of this term. Thus, Japan must (not even has to, but must) apply its authority and law over the islands, again by definition. All intruders should be either detained or expelled, or, if they do not comply, threatened to be eliminated.

    Two hours in territorial waters is simply unacceptable. When China will have the islands under its jurisdiction, then it will be able to sail and fly unopposed and expel Japanese at will. But for now, while the islands are under Japanese law, China behaves irresponsibly, and deliberately provokes an open conflict with Japan. And, honestly, Japan has to grow kohones some day, for God's sake.

  • 1

    flowers

    nigelboy, your logic seems to be misplaced here. J govt no longer uses the terms “effective control,” they now use “valid control” because their control is not effective when China can get in and out freely. SKorea and Russia both have effective controls over the disputed islands because J vessels or planes can never come near them. The Palmas Island case cannot be used as a reference because Japan did not finish surveying the islands nor disclose the incorporation of the islands publicly. Therefore, the title based on discovery and use stands. Now about the Treaty of Shimonoseki, do you know that on April 17, 1895, the Qing court was forced to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki and cede to Japan "the island of Formosa (Taiwan), together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa". And, when did the incorporation of the islands take place? January 1895, coincidence! I think not. You are right that the Commission does not decide the territorial disputes; however, the positive decision will help support China’s claim. Also, forget about ICJ, there is no point for China to pursue this route as Japan insists that there is no dispute i.e. Japan will not comply with the ICJ decision. Why do think China keep patrolling in the area? There are at least two reasons: to show that the dispute does exist and there is no longer an effective control by Japan.

  • -1

    Tony Ew

    @KonstaMar. 02, 2013 - 04:44AM JST

    Sovereignty or not, the islands are now under Japanese jurisdiction, which is not under dispute (even by Chinese), by the definition of this term. Thus, Japan must (not even has to, but must) apply its authority and law over the islands, again by definition. All intruders should be either detained or expelled, or, if they do not comply, threatened to be eliminated.

    Two hours in territorial waters is simply unacceptable. When China will have the islands under its jurisdiction, then it will be able to sail and fly unopposed and expel Japanese at will. But for now, while the islands are under Japanese law, China behaves irresponsibly, and deliberately provokes an open conflict with Japan. And, honestly, Japan has to grow kohones some day, for God's sake.

    Let's see if this makes sense to you: Party A ask Party B to administer a certain property. Title (sovereignty) is not passed to Party B

    Party B after a few years decide she OWNS the property (nobody paying attention righrt?), PASSING LAWS to proof ownership. BUT THEN Party B FORGOT she was NOT given title/sovereignty IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    So Party B can pass all the laws she want to claim ownership but the fact remains Party B does not have title/sovereignty to begin with! You can guess who Party B I am referring to!

  • 2

    nigelboy

    Let's see if this makes sense to you: Party A ask Party B to administer a certain property. Title (sovereignty) is not passed to Party B

    Actually, the title is passed from A to B in the 1971 Agreement. Except the neighbor C started claiming that part of property is theirs after 75 years but since it's no longer in the hands of party A, he/she recognizes that party B occupies them.

  • -2

    sfjp330

    In 1978, the signing of the treaty for Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute, Deng Xiaoping and PM Nakasone accepted and stated that the "dispute shall be postponed", and this was first Japanese representative to admit that there was a dispute over the islands. Japan admits in 1978 that "there is dispute" and now in 2013 saids "no dispute". Japan has a credibility problem.

    The question must be raised if it is equitable to apply western influenced methods to determine the ownership of the islands. The Chinese distrusts the modern concept of international law. For Chinese, the occupation of terra nullius in 1895 is regarded as a disguised way of aggression. Despite the Chinese stance of distrust, it may be known that China has assimilated their legal framework to almost all western titles of territory. Without a doubt, it was the Chinese who at first discovered the islands. The Japanese even do not dare to call into question this historical facts. The discovery has been sufficient for a title in the 16th century, one needs to adhere to the rules set up by the international tribunals.

  • -2

    Tony Ew

    @nigelboy

    Actually, the title is passed from A to B in the 1971 Agreement.

    You should have read the Senate testimony back then when the Secretary of State, representing the US did not say Japan have sovereignty. For this reason Hilliary Clinton cannot say Japan have sovereignty because she cannot find any clause that says so! The best she can do is 'US takes no position on sovereignty' even though her heart want Japan to have it. How can you brazenly say Japan have sovereignty when the US executive branch did not say so? Is 'sovereignty/title' ever written in the handover agreement to Japan in 1971?

    What Japan got is 'fools gold' (administer) not the real gold (sovereignty). Japan is being used by US to serve her military purpose, using Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands as a barrier to keep China military further away from US Okinawa bases.

    If Japan really have title/sovereignty, why don't Japan develop the islands since 1971 when China is still weak? The islands nearby are developed, why not Senkaku/Diaoyu ? The fact is Japan let the islands sits like a Dead Zone, doesn't that tell you there is something wrong with Japan claim of sovereignty?

    I say China, keep sending your civilian ships and airplanes to exert sovereignty and use this strategy to force Japan to make serious negotiations! But then, US may tell Japan to NOT negotiate because US may be out of business there if peace breaks out!

  • -1

    sfjp330

    The Japanese of havving incorporated terra nullius in 1895 cannot be backed by the legal facts. Looking at the legal situation by interpreting the international treaties, the position of Japan seems to be rather weak in the light of the 1952 retrocession of the islands to the Chinese. The Chinese regained the formal legal title by the Treaty of Taipei.

    Under international law the ownership is not only about "rightful or wrongful" possession. It must be remembered that the permanent effective territorial control is another key factor in determining the ownership of the island. The failure to protest may never invalidate a valid title to territory. The international tribunals have never determined the exact length of time necessary for a title acquired by prescription, so the possibility of the Japanese acquistion of a title by prescription must be refused.

  • 0

    Redcliff

    @ Konsta

    " Sovereignty or no the island is now under Japan jurisdiction, which is not under dispute....."

    You must be sleeping all this time it is precisely that this island and sovereignty is under dispute that all these incidence occurred.

  • 0

    Redcliff

    @ Nigleboy

    "Actually the title is passed from A to B in the 1971 agreement."

    First of all who has the right to this title, definitely not the US (historically US did not discovered it) and as such it has no right to passed any title that it does not owned or hold to another country. There was claimed in this forum that the US won this by mere being the Victor of the WWII. Far from It US is only one of the Allies, even as Victor one has to at least recognized the legitimate owner of these territories and return to its rightful owner. I have to comment that this unfortunate incidence occur and caused this unfortunate conflict between China and Japan is really originated by USA in committing this illegal act of transferring the Administrative rights to Japan under this agreement.

  • 1

    hidingout

    Tell your buddy who started this mess to kow tow to China and China may just stop 'intruding'!

    A laughable suggestion. We all know the apologies need to be coming from the communists.

    Until POTUS Obama give Japan permission to reclassify 'intrusion' as intrusion, the Chinese can come and go as she please. IN FACT China will have gone deeper into the air space and land on the islands IF US is not messing around that area.

    Does it bother you that a few words from POTUS can send the communists scurrying? I guess it is pretty embarrassing - talk about the definition of a paper tiger.

    China's penetration into the sea and air space = rightful claim to ownership, not an intrusion.

    Only in communist china.

    See, you get to administer the islands, but it is a DEAD ZONE, you cannot benefit from it economically.

    Oh dear. Is this the latest strategy of the fifty centers? Ever since the fish packing plant (owned and operated by the rightful owners of the land) closed down the islands have been an "economic dead zone". So what? I'm sure that in a few decades when the communists find their country collapsing and have their hands full with domestic peasant rebellions (how quaint) that Japan will be able to "develop" the islands at their leisure. For now the important point is to keep the territory out of the grasping clutches of the communists.

    while US benefit from it militarily, using the islands as a BARRIER to keep China militaries further away from US bases in Okinawa.

    So Japan gets the land, America gets a strategically important territory controlled by an ally, and the communists get to go pound sand. Sounds like the perfect scenario to me.

    Japan should THROW OUT US from Okinawa so this Senkaku/Diaoyu disputes can be solved to serve both the Japanese and China.

    Yes. I'm sure you would love that. Too bad.

    I am pretty sure China will be MUCH HAPPIER with Japan when US is removed from Okinawa and will be more than willing to share the resources with Japan. This is a practical solution to solve Japan and China's energy needs.

    Laughable. Show me any instance of the communists ever "sharing" anything with anybody. As for Japan and China ever being friends .... extremely doubtful. I suppose it could happen someday but only after the communists are defeated by their own people's uprising.

    Go ahead, change your Constitution, just no nukes, US move to Guam and can still protect Japan from 'behind'

    Its not "my" constitution. I'm not Japanese. And no thanks, we'll keep our friends right where they are and continue to watch the communists embarrass themselves with demonstrations of impotent rage.

  • 0

    Konsta

    Redcliff...it is precisely that this island and sovereignty is under dispute that all these incidence occurred.

    Redcliff, sovereignty is a highly ambiguous word and has at least four independent different meanings. Without a page of description, I do not understand what this word means. Maybe it is under dispute, as you say. What is unambiguously under dispute, is the ownership of the islands. This dispute is between the US and Japan, and only then, with China. What is NOT under dispute, is that currently, the islands are in the area, where Japanese laws are applied. There is difference. That is why, Chinese quickly move away, when noticed by Japanese. Thus, my previous post.

  • 0

    Kobuta Chan

    Japanese Navy and Air force should build base on largest island of Senkaku at appropriated time. Japanese Companies should withdraw their investment from China ASAP. Now Communist Government is telling Chinese peoples about the China will not be needed foreign investment and technology in within 10 years. Also China does not need to rely on international export market. It looks like Communist China will close it door to outside world again. I don’t see any reason for Japanese Company continuing investing in Communist China. One day they will kick out Japanese Company from China. If Japanese Companies quit Communist Chinese market and then Japanese Government dealing with Communist leaders will be easier than now. Communist Chinese Generals are itchy to shoot two birds with one stone. Taiwanese leaders also watch out for Communist Tsunami as well.

  • -2

    Tony Ew

    @Kobuta ChanMar. 03, 2013 - 06:01AM JST

    Japanese Navy and Air force should build base on largest island of Senkaku at appropriated time. Japanese Companies should withdraw their investment from China ASAP. Now Communist Government is telling Chinese peoples about the China will not be needed foreign investment and technology in within 10 years. Also China does not need to rely on international export market. It looks like Communist China will close it door to outside world again. I don’t see any reason for Japanese Company continuing investing in Communist China. One day they will kick out Japanese Company from China. If Japanese Companies quit Communist Chinese market and then Japanese Government dealing with Communist leaders will be easier than now. Communist Chinese Generals are itchy to shoot two birds with one stone. Taiwanese leaders also watch out for Communist Tsunami as well. - See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-scrambles-fighter-jets-to-meet-china-plane#comments

    Your comments never fail to amaze me! China loves to be your friend but if you don't play nice, what do you expect from China? No, China is not going to close her door. In fact China is stealthily trying to displace the English language with Chinese by giving free Chinese lessons! I have to email Abe if there is an advisor job opening !

    China will continue to exert sovereignty by poking around the edges of Senkaku/Diaoyu islands and Abe just have to tolerate it. I thought he said he won't tolerate it! Now what?

  • 0

    Nessie

    iRobin, now you are using ad hominid attacks on grammar.

    The irony, man!

  • -2

    Tony Ew

    @hidingout

    OK my apologies, ( not that fake 'regretable' Abe/Noda is famous for) sound like hinoki, but on closer look hiding out!

    POTUS knows how to handle China gingerly and he knows China is just finessing her moves, nothing over the red line, so it is not going to happen. Obama is not going to warn China since no major breach occurs. Why should China pick an unnecessary fight with US? There is silent understanding and as long as temperature is kept below boiling point US will be very happy, proving Japan NEED US to be around there! Besides US is too busy with domestic issues and broke to engage with China militarily.

    People power will throw US out of Okinawa but on the other hand it seems they were bought, the governor himself was bought (from an Okinawan comment) even though he make a lot of noise, so maybe it won't happen. Oh, democracy can be bought too!

    Everything is posturing, negotiating stance. Whether China will share or not is left to be seen. Be nice to China and reap the reward faster! China is just as hungry to develop the oil/gas in the disputed seas as Japan is.

    So the beat goes on. China will continue to patrol the seas and air around Senkaku/ Diaoyu islands. Abe will continue to look like a wimp, unable to do a thing. Why? Japan will get back into recession if war ever start and he will be thrown out!

  • 0

    toannds

    @Tony EwMar: People just don't understand China behavior very well.

    You are rite. I guess some neighbors did not understand China very well that's why they were caught off guard when they believed in the "peacefull raise" of China.

    When China ask for bilateral negotiations with the neighbors, what do they do?

    Bilateral talks with China was proven not working and will not work because the big bad guy just tried to bully the tiny neighbors. China is the one does not know how to talk. The only thing it knows is bringing more ships to South East China sea to intimidate others. Philippines already said all their efforts were "exhausted" (sic). The "nine-dash-line" claim is shameless because it just lick all neighbours EEZ. China itself of course knows they would lose flat in any international court because it is groundless. That's why it try to keep the matter "locally". A bad guy is trying to grab toy from a kid by force. When the kid see it is hopeless to get the toy back by "talk", he then shouts for help. We know what the bad guy would do, logically: Shhh ... please keep quiet! Don't let anyone know!

    They hide behind Clinton strategy to negotiate under the ASEAN 'group purchasing power' hoping China will give them a discount under duress

    What a tiny country does when the bad giant neighbor misbehaves and does not know how to talk? Should it fight alone? Or it will team up with other victims and some other bigger guys? You should have known by now how international diplomacy work.

  • -1

    flowers

    toannds, what’s to be caught off guard about China’s peaceful rise, the whole world has expected the rise of China for decades. What you don’t understand is China is abiding by the rules set in the Agreement between the Philippines and China that any disputes shall be resolved by bilateral talks. China didn’t force them to sign the Agreement. But, the Philippines negate their own agreement and you thought China tried to force or intimidate them. China has never used the ICJ, and Japan has no intention to abide by the decision of ICJ as it claims there is no dispute. So, what is the point of bringing up the ICJ? If you think thoroughly and without bias, you will see that China has been reacting or responding to all these issues, or in another word, China has never been the first to aggravate the issues, only trying to resolve them. And, don’t use “big guy, little guy” excuse, this is the 21st century and the whole world is watching every move that China makes. So, do you really think China can eat up a little guy just like that? You can see that China has good relationships with other neighbours such as Myanmar, Laos, and Thailand. What you don’t see is it is a political game and China is set to be the target of all these attacks. So, China will continue to assert its sovereignty the best it can.

  • 1

    nigelboy

    nigelboy, your logic seems to be misplaced here. J govt no longer uses the terms “effective control,” they now use “valid control” because their control is not effective when China can get in and out freely

    Which is irrelevant and subjective as well as the fact that you are basically admitting that China lacks diplomacy knowing that Japan will not use force until is absolutely necessary.

    The Palmas Island case cannot be used as a reference because Japan did not finish surveying the islands nor disclose the incorporation of the islands publicly.

    Your first assertion is merely speculation. Your second point also is irrelevant since it does not change the fact that China eventually knew about the incorporation but did nothing for over 75 years.

    Now about the Treaty of Shimonoseki, do you know that on April 17, 1895, the Qing court was forced to sign the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki and cede to Japan "the island of Formosa (Taiwan), together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa". And, when did the incorporation of the islands take place? January 1895, coincidence!

    Again, irrelevant for I as well as many others have already pointed out that the said treaty has NOTHING to do with Senkaku.

    You are right that the Commission does not decide the territorial disputes; however, the positive decision will help support China’s claim.

    There won't be a positive decision by the Commission simply because they have already violated Article 83 of UNCLOS. Most likely, the commission will not make a decision hence the status quo.

    Also, forget about ICJ, there is no point for China to pursue this route as Japan insists that there is no dispute i.e. Japan will not comply with the ICJ decision.

    False. Japan is a signatory of Declaration whereby she not only accepts the jurisdiction but the decision of ICJ. China has not. Therefore, China has openly admitted that she does not recognize the jurisdiction nor the decision of ICJ.

  • 1

    nigelboy

    You should have read the Senate testimony back then when the Secretary of State, representing the US did not say Japan have sovereignty.

    False. What the Sectretary of State said during that time is they were not sure of what was received from Japan in the Treaty of Peace and what was given to Japan in the 1971 Reversion agreement due to China's "out of the blue" assertion. Since the 1971 agreement officially released U.S. of Okinawa and related territories, they simply took the neutral position of recognizing the administration.

  • -1

    flowers

    nigelboy, how can it be irrelevant and subjective when the term “valid control” is actually used by Japan and it has nothing to do with diplomacy at all. Is it not true that China’s vessels can get in and out of the area freely? Can you tell the difference between what happened to Taiwanese vessels and the vessels from China when they entered the area? If you can see the difference then there is no effective control. My logic stands.

    There is no speculation about the Palmas Island reference either, as you admitted that there was no announcement of the incorporation of the islands at the time. So, that case is a valid reference for China instead of Japan because to override the title based on discovery and use Japan had to publicly announce it which Japan did not do at the time. I also found another article that mentioned China did object to the Japan’s claim during the period in question as shown in the previous poster’s link.

    You can object that the Treaty of Shimonoseki has nothing to do with “Senkaku” but that is in contrary to Taiwanese people’s belief including also other Chinese people around the world. Do you really believe that if it is not specifically mentioned then it is not applied? The Potsdam Declaration did not mention Okinawa either, so by the same logic Okinawa does not belong to Japan.

    You also seem to get the idea that Japan has to comply with the decision of ICJ because it is a signatory of Declaration, but that is false as has been mentioned in the western media many times that Japan will not go to Court whether for or against as it claims there is no dispute. Can you tell me the logic of using "no dispute" claim when the whole world can see the dispute?

  • 1

    nigelboy

    nigelboy, how can it be irrelevant and subjective when the term “valid control” is actually used by Japan and it has nothing to do with diplomacy at all. Is it not true that China’s vessels can get in and out of the area freely? Can you tell the difference between what happened to Taiwanese vessels and the vessels from China when they entered the area? If you can see the difference then there is no effective control. My logic stands.

    Your logic is as same as U.S. doesn't have control of her territory because of the presence of millions of illegal immigrants.

    There is no speculation about the Palmas Island reference either, as you admitted that there was no announcement of the incorporation of the islands at the time. So, that case is a valid reference for China instead of Japan because to override the title based on discovery and use Japan had to publicly announce it which Japan did not do at the time. I also found another article that mentioned China did object to the Japan’s claim during the period in question as shown in the previous poster’s link.

    There is no requirement to announce them overseas. Perhaps you could enlighten me on this supposed objection that China had then we can start from there.

    You can object that the Treaty of Shimonoseki has nothing to do with “Senkaku” but that is in contrary to Taiwanese people’s belief including also other Chinese people around the world. Do you really believe that if it is not specifically mentioned then it is not applied? The Potsdam Declaration did not mention Okinawa either, so by the same logic Okinawa does not belong to Japan.

    "Belief" is fine if you can back it up. It is not my role to prove that Senkaku was NOT included in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. It is your job to prove that Senkaku did in fact included in the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

    You also seem to get the idea that Japan has to comply with the decision of ICJ because it is a signatory of Declaration, but that is false as has been mentioned in the western media many times that Japan will not go to Court whether for or against as it claims there is no dispute. Can you tell me the logic of using "no dispute" claim when the whole world can see the dispute?

    "The States parties to the Statute of the Court may "at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court" (Art 36, para. 2 of the Statute).

    Each State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has in principle the right to bring any one or more other State which has accepted the same obligation before the Court by filing an application instituting proceedings with the Court, and, conversely, it has undertaken to appear before the Court should proceedings be instituted against it by one or more such other States."

    Simple. By China signing the above, Japan has no choice to but to comply with the jurisdiction as well the decision of the court. In other words, if and when China signs this and brings forth the case to ICJ is when there is a "dispute".

    However, since China is not a signatory or have not intended to ever sign such declaration, it's basically telling the world that she does not recognize ICJ and their jurisdiction.

  • -2

    flowers

    nigelboy, you did not answer my question. It has nothing to do with the presence of people dictating the control of territory, but the treatment and approach of control itself. Do you not agree that China vessel can get in and out of the area freely but Taiwan’s cannot? There was no announcement of the incorporation of the islands; in fact, it was a secret until years later that China knew about it. So again, China has the title based on discovery and use. Regarding China’s objection, please check the link posted before by someone and the author - Dr. Chandra Muzaffar. Now, about my belief, the islands are parts of Taiwan and whatever Treaty mentioned the word “Taiwan” or ”Formosa” was meant to cover all the islands as well. The same logic when you call “Japan” which consists of many islands. Again, you did not answer my question about the “no dispute” claim. You should read your own quote again; there is a huge difference between “may” and “must”. If Japan really wants to use ICJ, then it would not use “no dispute” claim. Unless, you have other reasons, please enlighten me.

  • 1

    nigelboy

    I did answer your question but your point being that China frequently infringes on the island's territorial waters does in no way shape or form legitimizes China in terms of international law. In regards to Muzaffar's paper, he basically repeats the echo of Chinese argument and fails to point out any evidence which suggest China making any protest of Japan's incorporation. And if you want Japan to acknowledge the dispute, all China has to do is to sign the said declaration. The mere fact that China has avoided this as well as their avoidance of the use word"ICJ" is another clear indication that they themselves know their claim is bogus and bringing this to ICJ would surely be an embarrassment to the world stage.

  • 1

    sfjp330

    Senkaku/Daioyu islands were transferred to Japan in terms of “administrative rights.” The U.S. clearly avoided the term “sovereignty” when returning these islands in 1972. The phrase reflects in part the ambiguous status of the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands. The Senkaku/Daioyu Islands were not part of the Ryukyu Kingdom originally. In addition, given the political environment of the Cold War the special proximity of these islands to the PRC gave them a special status in the eyes of the U.S. Perhaps the U.S. wished to carve out a special political space for those islands. That phrase “administrative rights” with regards to the islands deserves careful consideration. One might ask what exactly the difference is between “administrative rights” and sovereignty or ownership. In what exact sense does an island belong to a nation and who, ultimately does that nation belong to?

  • -1

    flowers

    nigelboy, there is no infringement when China has the sovereignty and shows to the world that China can get in and out of the area freely, which in a way asserting control. You still don’t understand about the “no dispute” claim and insisting that all China has to do is signing the declaration, then the “no dispute” claim would be invalid. You use an excuse that China avoided ICJ, but in fact, Japan has been avoiding it by using “no dispute” claim all along. You can’t even come up with a reason why Japan is using “no dispute” claim.

  • 0

    sfjp330

    flowers Mar. 05, 2013 - 09:12AM JST there is no infringement when China has the sovereignty and shows to the world that China can get in and out of the area freely, which in a way asserting control.

    Then what is the validity of the 1895? Treaty of Shimonoseki reveals no clauses which would allow such a unilateral cancellation, either by the Qing Dynasty, or by a successor dynasty, or a non-dynasty, such as a republic. Certainly, the Chinese statement of the cancellation of the Treaty of Shimonoseki was not recognized by Japan, other countries, or by any other international bodies. Nor are there any international court cases on record which recognize the validity of such a unilateral cancellation.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Flowers,

    Let me try it this way. Japan thinks there are no dispute because they absolutely believe that their claim is iron proof under international law. This is fully supported by the fact that China has not at any time, used the word "International Court of Justice". This is a clear indication that China herself knows that her claim has no basis under international law.

  • 0

    toannds

    @flowers: What you don’t understand is China is abiding by the rules set in the Agreement between the Philippines and China that any disputes shall be resolved by bilateral talks. China didn’t force them to sign the Agreement. But, the Philippines negate their own agreement and you thought China tried to force or intimidate them

    I already answered in my post earlier: Philippines already brought the case to the court because all efforts already "exhausted" thanks to China continuous sending ships to Philippines EEZ. The talk did not work because China talk by "flexing muscles" only. That's why China "stick" to bilateral talk where it can manipulate/bully the smaller and weaker rather than dealing with all victims or other big guys at the same time. Common, don't tell me that there's no such practice in this 21st century. You should see that since China and ASEAN countries signed the agreement, China is the one that has been continuously harassing its neighbors and trying to change status quo most.

    Lets try a simple version: In your life, when you sign any contract with some one, both parties basically agree on things to do and not to do. The clause you should see is when there's a dispute/conflict both will have to sit down and try to solve them. BUT another one even more important: if no solution can be found, the matter should go to some court. This is to prevent any party from unilaterally infringe other party's interest when the talk failed. That's what people do everywhere in this world!

    So, do you really think China can eat up a little guy just like that?

    Tibet people regretted. Everything is possible! See, no one imagined before that some day a country could assert such a groundless and shameless "nine dash lines" claim over 80% of South China Sea which licks all neighbors EEZ. Yet, there is one.

    You can see that China has good relationships with other neighbours such as Myanmar, Laos, and Thailand

    Sure, China badly wants to get back to the time when it enjoyed its monopoly in Myanmar. After long time being taken advantage by China, finally Myanmar broken up the isolation.

    I guess you should have mentioned Cambodia as well because China successfully divided the ASIAN countries in its summit. This is off topic anyway.

  • -1

    flowers

    nigelboy, you are forgetting something, whenever China responded to Japan’s claims they also mentioned (many times) that their claims are supported by historical evidence and international laws. You don’t see the contradiction here, if Japan’s claim is iron proof then there shouldn’t be “no dispute” claim. You only say “no dispute” if you don’t want to bring the case to Court. Has Japan ever challenged China to Court or said let’s settle this in court? Japan couldn’t say that because by saying that it would mean the dispute exists. And, don’t say that China has to initiate the court proceeding. China will not do that because she does not believe in ICJ, and it has nothing to do with any weak claims.

  • -1

    flowers

    toannds, that is the lamest excuse, the Philippines broke their own agreement because all efforts already “exhausted”! If you read the news China never once said “no more negotiation”, only “let’s keep the dialogue going”. China is not like Russia and S.Korea, they really meant “no more negotiation”. China is even big enough to say “let’s meet half way” to Japan. When there is still a negotiation, nothing is exhausted. You should know that excuse is used because they know that China has no intention to get other countries involved. It has nothing to do with being big or small, but it is a political game that they (Japan, Vietnam, Philippines) play. Can you find any country that openly supports their claims? China just wants to get back what actually belong to her in the first place. And, we are talking about the second largest economy in the world which has not engaged in a single war for decades. It would be way off topics to say more, but thank you for mentioning Cambodia.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Flowers

    Speaking of contradictions, what you fail to realize is that the only U.N. sanction organ that decides which party has the stronger "historical evidence" and merits on international law is International Court of Justice. So unless China is willing to "put up", they should "shut up". This is a global standard. Deal with it.

  • -1

    flowers

    sfjp330, I believe any prior treaties should be null and void when Japan accepted and signed Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation. That means Taiwan and her territories including all the islands should be returned to China. By not returning the islands Japan has denied the post-war order which leads to the creditability problem for Japan. Japan’s position in East Asia has been in a downward spiral, and she can only rely on those countries that have disputes with China but with substantial costs for Japan.

  • -1

    flowers

    nigelboy, ever heard of a “win-win” negotiation? There is always a way for both sides to “win” without involving ICJ. By using the court, it would mean one side wins and the other loses, but what happens after is the loser will come up with other excuse or dispute to keep it going again. It has nothing to do with global standard but more towards political drama which China really hates to be involved in. So, the best way for both sides to win is through bilateral negotiation, but Japan has been refusing to do all along. Instead, Japan sees it as a chance to boost its failing position in the world and to tarnish China’s image with it.

  • 1

    sfjp330

    flowers Mar. 06, 2013 - 03:00AM JST I believe any prior treaties should be null and void when Japan accepted and signed Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation. That means Taiwan and her territories including all the islands should be returned to China.

    The article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration expressly laid down that Japan's sovereignty should not be removed from minor islands as the Allies will determine. Therefore, the minor disputed islands could still enjoy Japanese sovereignty. The Senkaku/Daioyu islands are not expressly mentioned in the declaration. The precise extent of Japanese islands sovereignty remained clearly undertmined. It is possible that the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were counted to belong to the "minor islands as we determine". The terms of the Cairo and Potsdam Declaration were concluded in too vague and confusing language that is subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse the terms.

  • 1

    sfjp330

    flowers Mar. 06, 2013 - 03:43AM JST So, the best way for both sides to win is through bilateral negotiation, but Japan has been refusing to do all along.

    The conflict will drag on for quite a long time. The only realistically viable solution that could be found one day is a joint development of the maritime resources. China's position and Japan's official positions are very much alike. Since Japan is administering the islands, they deny the existince of the dispute, and puts forward that no conflict over Senkaku/Daioyu exists. Eventually, whoever is in the weaker position will propose ways for final resolution.

  • -1

    flowers

    sfjp330, "and minor islands as we determine" in this case "we" are China, US and Great Britain. Think of it this way, did they specifically mentioned those minor islands by names? Did they even "determine"? If not, then Japan has no right to those islands.

  • 1

    sfjp330

    flowers, After signing the Surrender Terms, Taiwan still was a territory occupied by the Allies, which was subject to Japanese sovereignty. As the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were under Japanese sovereignty at that time, the same line of reasoning should be applied to them. The legal status was altered neither by the War Agreement nor by the Surrender Terms.

  • -2

    flowers

    sfjp330, are we talking on the same thing here? After Japan accepted and signed the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclaimaton, then the islands should be returned to China. Japan never has the sovereignty over the islands.

  • 1

    sfjp330

    flowers Mar. 06, 2013 - 06:58AM JST After Japan accepted and signed the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclaimaton, then the islands should be returned to China. Japan never has the sovereignty over the islands.

    In Chinese view, the reversion of the Senkaku/Daioyu islands to the Japanese violated the Potsdam and Cairo Declaration. In the Potstam/Cairo Declaration, it has been stated that all annexed territories must be returned to the China. Since the PRC refuses to recognize the SF and Taipei Treaty, the only piller for PRC are the Japanese Surrender Terms of 1945. The Japanese do not attach any further importance to Surrender Terms. As the islands were not part of the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, Japan could not be bound to return them on basis of any post-war agreement. The valid legal grounds determining the islands status are the San Francisco and Taipei Treaty, which the Chinese did not use to lodge any protest.

  • 0

    toannds

    @flowers:

    that is the lamest excuse, the Philippines broke their own agreement because all efforts already “exhausted”! If you read the news China never once said “no more negotiation”, only “let’s keep the dialogue going”.

    Yes, "let's keep the dialogue going" when my ships keep coming and some dirty trick such as banana import ban. Once I built enough pressure, the "dialogue" should be going well.

    That's the so called Chinese style dialogue. It would be a strange thing if China said there's no more negotiation.

  • 2

    OssanAmerica

    The Cairo and Potsdam declaration specifically state that territories "taken by force or greed" by Japan should be returned. The Senkakus were never taken by force or greed, they were incorporated as Terra Nullius, in accordance with proper international protocol. Hence, they wedre exepmpt, unlike Taiwan, the Pescadores etc. China blatantly lied to the entire world when they declared at the UN that the islands were "stolen" by Japan. Anyone who believes that Japan "took" these islands from China, when there is no record of any Chinese ever inhabiting them, is merely buying the Chinese propaganda. Furthermore why is the PRC even bringing up the Cairo and Potsdam declarations when it did not even exist until 1949? It was never a party to any agreement during WWII when the ROC was the legitimate government of China.

  • -1

    Zenpun

    Ossan

    Pls refer to that Island. Not only Chinese but also South East Asian Scholars residing in North America believe that Japan was a land grabber and intruder.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-china-japan-dispute-over-diaoyu-islands-historical-analysis/5306206

    http://www.tokyoweekender.com/2012/09/senkaku-island-dispute/

    Japan was more likely Irish immigrants or settler of 18th century of Japan. Japan was even conquered by migrants. Were Okinawa and Hokkaido has inhabitants or not. They still shared similar fate of Senkaku. Whether there were inhabitants or not, Japan will conquer with force.

  • 0

    Upgrayedd

    Since China never incorporated the Senkaku islands into their territory, on what grounds should Japan RETURN the islands?

    You can't return an island to a country that never owned or controlled it.

  • 0

    Athletes

    You can't return an island to a country that never owned or controlled it.

    That logic apply to all territories which Japan is disputing right now. Do not expect Russia to return Krill or SK to return Takeshima or Doko to Japan.

    Japan or China has to accept the reality. Even Senkaku is under Japan control since 1971, it has no commercial development or mining exploration yet. Fish from that area have to share with all the ships which come and go. In theory, it is under effective control. Reality is not.

  • 0

    avgvstvs

    > @Viking68

    In your aguments, there is a potential opinion that if I can win the war I can possess the territory, right? Do you really think this logic is right? If this is right, where can the peace reside in? >

    It happened all the time during history. Check some real history. I could give some country names but i bet the mods will erase this comment.

  • 1

    OssanAmerica

    ZenpunMar. 07, 2013 - 01:43PM JST Ossan Pls refer to that Island. Not only Chinese but also South East Asian Scholars residing in North America believe that >Japan was a land grabber and intruder.

    Japan's "land grabbing and intruding" ended in 1945. China's started in 1949.

  • -2

    flowers

    OssanAmerica, are you trying to mislead the public? The Cairo and Potsdam Declarations specifically state that “all the territories Japan has taken from China such as Manchuria (Dongbei), Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu), shall be restored to the Republic of China,” “Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed,” and "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." Do you see the key words “also” and the limitation of the “sovereignty”? About the Terra Nullius claim, there were evidences that showed Japan knew about the islands not being terra nullius at the time, that was the reason why it took ten years for Japan to incorporate the islands. The date of the incorporation was also called into question because it took place only a couple of months before the Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed. Also, the incorporation of the islands was not publicly announced until years later that China knew about it which leads to confirm the legitimacy of the title based on first discovery and use superseding other claims. Looking at it closely you will see that this is called a theft and worse it tried to cover its tracks. And, you are also conflicting yourself by saying that PRC did not exist until 1949 because that confirms ROC being legitimate China at the time. But, in fact, under the agreement both PRC and ROC were considered to be China one of the same.

  • 0

    Zenpun

    Ossan

    Japan's "land grabbing and intruding" ended in 1945. China's started in 1949

    According Athletes post, Japan and China are not willing to accept today reality. They like spoiled kids asking for ice cream.

    That theory is wrong. Japan is still claiming so many disputed territories (excluding Senkaku). If Russia transfer Krill or SK transfer Doko, Japan will be still greedy. It will claim many outstanding disputes.

    http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/02/japans-dilemma-maritime-disputes-in-east-asia/

    http://english.ruvr.ru/20130205/Japan-sets-up-territorial-dispute-agency/

    It has a strategy of claiming many territories as much as possible. It is pushy and demanding nation.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Program Assistant

    Program Assistant
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • Recruitment / HR Generalist

    Recruitment / HR Generalist
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ
  • IELTSインストラクター

    IELTSインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥3,500 / Hour Negotiable
  • Bilingual Administrative Staff

    Bilingual Administrative Staff
    Star Kids International Preschool、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable Depending on experience
  • TOEICインストラクター

    TOEICインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥3,000 / Hour Negotiable

More in National

View all

View all