Two Japanese land on disputed island: coastguard

And so began WWIII....cue the music.

"“The Diaoyu Islands and affiliated islands have been China’s inherent territory since ancient times,” he said."

I don't reallyconsider 1970 to be "ancient times". I remember it pretty well.

Plenty of childish behavior by all the parties involved.

Kita Kojima / Bei Xiaodao Minami Kojima / Nan Xiaodao. Area, 7 square kilometres (1700 acres. Use it for bombing and artillery practice until it is an atoll.

Quite childish, I must say.

I don't reallyconsider 1970 to be "ancient times". I remember it pretty well.

The PRC's date of joining the U.N. is not relevant. China existed long before the U.N. and even longer before the U.N. decided to recognize and admit the PRC....so they could finally file their claim to the islands.

You seem to have reality confused with paperwork, a common mental block among conservatives, I know.

OssanAmerica

"“The Diaoyu Islands and affiliated islands have been China’s inherent territory since ancient times,” he said."

I don't really consider 1970 to be "ancient times". I remember it pretty well.

Not so fast. It is not nearly as simple as that. Let's use this as a platform. It holds both views.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/senkaku.htm>

“The illegal acts of the Japanese right-wing activists severely violate Chinese territorial sovereignty.

Cue violins. Melodramatic statements over two nuts swimming to an island gives the acts of the nuts credence. Should have taken the bull by the horns and said "These two fools swimming to our islands changes nothing; except to expose two fools. They really should not violate our sovereignty, but I hope they had a nice visit to China!"

Officials of the city landed on part of the city. What the National Government is doing is against the Constitution. They really need to grow a spine. China claims the ocean almost to the Okinawa shoreline and there is no doubt they will claim my home. It matter not that Ishihara buys the islands, then they will pay Tokyo rent money. The courts in the mainland are bought by the jiji who control the central government. They would sell their own children for extra profit.

OssanAmerica,

I don't really consider 1970 to be "ancient times". I remember it pretty well.

Not so fast. It is not as simple as that. Let's use this as a resource. It holds both views. I know if you go to MOFA and look there it looks pretty simple and that is all. But it is not that easy. < http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/senkaku.htm>

You know, I think this really just depends on who you want to believe and where you are from. If you live in either of the three countries that dispute it, you naturally feel a tendency to believe that country and its propaganda. Personally, I think you just make if off limits to everyone and make it into preserve where there is no fishing, whaling or anything else. Nobody is allowed to sit foot there or even swim there. Leave it alone and let it go untouched by human hands.

It is funny though for me that since 2002, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has paid the Kurihara family ¥25 million a year to rent Uotsuri, Minami Kojima and Kita Kojima. Japan's Ministry of Defense rents Kuba island for an undisclosed amount. Kuba is used by the U.S. military as a practice aircraft bombing range.

Sorry to the Kurihara's but that seems to me to a waste to tax payer money. And only done so that Japan can claim the area.

Personally, I would like to see both idiots be arrested and sent to Siberia for creating an international incident. Both are stupid!!!

Tranquility base, the eagle has landed.

troyinjapan, the islands are part of Ishigawa city! 25 million is not a lot of money. It use to cost me 1.2 million to rent a tiny 3LDK Sagamihara! What about the Constitution?

Neither side wants the settlement of this dispute to set an unfavorable precedent for the resolution of other similar troubles. For China, the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands has a strong implication for concern with their sovereignty in the South China Sea. The reason that China cannot soften its attitude toward the Senkaku Islands is clear. If it softens its posture over the Senkaku, it might be considered as softening of its position on the Spratly and Paracel islands disputes in the South China Sea. For Japan, the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute also implies Japanese attitude toward the territorial disputes with Russia over the “Kurile Islands” and with Korea over the Dokdo Island. Any softening on the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute might undermine the Japanese claims to both the “Kurile Islands” and the Dokdo Island. Since international credibility is taken into account, both China and Japan are adamant and steadfast in their claims to the disputed islands.

“Despite our warning, they dived into the sea from a fishing boat and reached the island,” a Japanese coastguard official said, adding that the two stayed for 90 minutes before leaving.

The Japanese government controls the strategically-coveted but uninhabited islands and is resolute about the territory being Japanese, but prohibits people from going there without permission in a bid to cool tensions.

What I don't understand is why the Japanese coast guard didn't arrest these two idiots like they did the Chinese fisherman who entered the same area. They sure didn't allow the Chinese fishing boat that opportunity and tried to arrest the crew as soon as possible. That is what they should have done with the Japanese fishing boat that had these two guys on it. Kind of unfair to say the least.

What about the constitution, Yuri? What has that got to do with it? Do tell....

tideofironJul. 07, 2012 - 09:22AM JST

Let China, Korea, and Japan bicker over their islands or any other scrap among them. Somehow it all seems so deserving, all three xenophobic societies going round and round with each other forever.

Very true and what is sadly needed is a nice big north east Asian war among themselves, to bring them to their senses and realize the futility of hyper nationalism and herrenvolkism in the age of modern warfare.

A bit like the devestating effects that WW 2 had on the western European mindset after 1945.

Nothing else will resolve it and America should stay well out of the way, if it knows what's good for it.

Join the dance, it's the right-winger bop!

Apart from making a bit of noise about it, Beijing knows it can't do much about this. But I can't help but see the irony of this dispute getting airtime at the same time as that of the Kurils. A very similar dispute in reverse. But jeez, these two guys have to be A-Class idiots.

troyinjapan, I pointed out in another threat which parts of the Constitution the National government is breaking. The Okinawa only laws are against the Constitution. The national government can not make laws in only a local area without the consent of the local people. My guess is the government will do nothing. If it goes to trial then all of the Okinawa only laws will be brought into question. This includes forcing people to rent their land for US bases.

Article 95: A special law, applicable only to one local public entity, cannot be enacted by the Diet without the consent of the majority of the voters of the local public entity concerned, obtained in accordance with law.

Dog, America has pledge to defend Japan. If they do not it will open a door best left closed if not locked. Japan has physical control of these islands. What is more natural then for owners to develop their land?

I understand what you are saying. I am just saying that I kind of feel it depends on which side of the fence you are on. A lot of emotion takes place on this issue. Manipulation by the media on all sides of the fence as well. Nobody wants to give an inch at all. But I still feel that it is a waste of tax payer money. Sorry, that is just how I feel. Also, they should have been arrested and or at least not been able to land on the islands? Can you dispute that, Yuri?

By the way, please provide us with a link for the point that you wanted to point out about the Okinawa law being against the constitution, please?

If Japan Is really controlling the Senkaku islands, its government would have to do something remarkable like Russia did to Northern islands. Otherwise it would lose them someday.

Officials of the city landed on part of the city.

Not if the government declares them off limits. There are plenty of places all around Japan that people can not freely go even though the land or territory are within their boundaries.

The national government is right, with the intent to maintain the status quo and peace in the region, to place them off limits.

The politician who went ashore should be arrested and charged with trespassing as he did not have permission to go there.

The national government can not make laws in only a local area without the consent of the local people.

Huh? The "national" government does it all the time. The "local" government can make it's own laws as well. Let's not forget that those islands are private property right now, LEASED by the national government, who CAN dictate who can and can not go there.

Dog,

I would not like to see such a thing happen and that would be a huge waste of lives, money and time. This should be something for an entity like the Hague to decide. Not the UN, which is as corrupt beyond belief. Countries bribing each other with outright bribes in all sorts of forms including ODA or "if you-go-with-me-on-this-I-will-go-with-you-on-that-kind" of-crap. It should not be left to the three entities involved in this because as sfjp has pointed out they have multiple land and sea disputes and can not be seen as weak on any one issue. That 's why it should just be turned into a natural preserve.

The politician who went ashore should be arrested and charged with trespassing as he did not have permission to go there.

Politicians can go there if they report to the government "We go there and examine the islands officially". No need of permission. But ordinary people can't do it.

Dog,

Your thinking is too simple. America is not going to commit nuclear suicide for a childish Japan who wants all the toys in their pram - the same as Korea and China.

Sorry, Yuri, but he is right. The US is not going to commit nuclear suicide for Japan. Who would for any country?

Reminds me of Jeremy Bentham's 'Utilitarianism'. No, the US will not go to war for Japan and piss off China. Japan may be an important US ally, but it is not the individual that matters as much as the whole.

Dog,

I don't need to get over myself one bit. Dummies are abound and there is no sense in single out one group of dummies when the world is infested with them. So, let's not Dog the US out here. Sorry, for the pun.

I know that everyone finds the irony of the northern island dispute popping up about the same time as this. What about the sheer irony of Taiwan wanting to claim dibs on the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands? They get in a preparation H buttroar when China claims that Taiwan doesn't really exists and that it belongs to them. Now they want the Senkaka YouDai islands as well? It all boils down to the economics of fishing, drilling, and mining.

It's also funny to see people who usually comment on how American military should get out of Japan for being such a burden doing a U- turn and saying that US has pledged to promise and defend Japan when it suits them. Kinda double standards isn't it ?

Yes and no. Fact is they are here and use Japanese land and money. One might not want the appointed bodyguard, but if their salary is drawn from someone's account, its not odd to expect some work, is it?

I can only speak for myself, but I want the American military out, I want them out of affairs on the islands, and I do live here in Japan, and my tax money does go to them.

And contrary to troyinjapan's assertation, I am on the Japanese side of the fence, but I would like to see these islands returned to China. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Japan MUST do it. I think the Chinese have lacked military control for so long, they no longer have a valid claim, and Japanese military control, followed by American military control, followed by giving the islands to Japan, followed by Japanese military control means the islands belong to Japan in reality, and this pattern is historically valid. But the trouble is that if Japan goes that route, they further validate the doctrine of "might makes right", and they may as well shut up about the Kuriles.

Japan took the islands in a hostile move. It can keep the islands yes, but its not a good precedent for the future or Sino-Japanese relations. Japan should be more civilized, admit how it obtained the islands, reject that, and give them back to China.

Politicians can go there if they report to the government "We go there and examine the islands officially". No need of permission. But ordinary people can't do it.

I don't think jumping off of a fishing boat, and swimming to shore qualifies as an official political visit.

Correct me if I am wrong here but I also believe that politicians are responsible to report their intent prior to going as well.

@Kwatt

like Russia did to the Northern islands.

Russia put residents to live there, and those people live and work there today. The Senkakus have no Japanese residents, making it difficult for Japan to insist it owns the islands, especially as the islands are so close to Taiwan and China.

I know that everyone finds the irony of the northern island dispute popping up about the same time as this. What about the sheer irony of Taiwan wanting to claim dibs on the Senkaku/Daioyu Islands? They get in a preparation H buttroar when China claims that Taiwan doesn't really exists and that it belongs to them. Now they want the Senkaka YouDai islands as well? It all boils down to the economics of fishing, drilling, and mining.

Laurenço Iscariot Shells,

Yep. That is what all boils down to, isn't it?

troyinjapan, the islands are part of Ishigawa city!

Yuri, for someone who claims to hail from Okinawa you should know better. There is no Ishigawa City in Okinawa.

It's called Ishigaki.

OpinionhatedJul. 07, 2012 - 10:38AM JST

Yes and no. Fact is they are here and use Japanese land and money. One might not want the appointed bodyguard, but if their salary is drawn from someone's account, its not odd to expect some work, is it?

What's the going rate for the senseless death of an American 19 year old soldier?

I think the relationship is a lot more complex than your description. Purely in fiscal terms, a lot of the taxes the japanese pay to the US government, for the staioning of their soldiers in Japan, were generated by the American consumer buying japanese manufactured products

@jefflee

It doesn't matter whether Japanese live there or not. And it doesn't matter whether the islands are geologically closer to Taiwan/China. Japan is actually controlling the islands now. I said more politicians and scientists are(had) better visit the islands more often for something. This is at least they can do constantly. It seems Japanese visit it once in 10 years to try not piss off China. This is not good at all.

This looks like one of those articles where YuriOtani is going to wave the American flag, until the next article where she can post her normal "Yankee go home" comments!! LOL

"Taiwan reasserted its claim to the outcrops, and urged Tokyo “to exercise self-restraint and not to interfere with our sovereignty”, according to a statement from the island’s foreign ministry."

Does China know about the above quote, or are they taking a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach?

troyinjapanJul. 07, 2012 - 09:36AM JST What I don't understand is why the Japanese coast guard didn't arrest these two idiots like they did the Chinese >fisherman who entered the same area.

The Chindese fishing boat captain wsan't arrested for being in those waters. He was arrested for deliberately ramming the JCG vessels. Twice. Didn't watch the video footage?

Yuri,

I don't care what part of whichever Kingdom they belonged to or whoever incorporated them whenever they did so. For me it is besides the point. As for as we can tell very few people have ever lived there. I think if you go back before 1895, nobody ever lived there up until then anyway. And even then they were incorporated into Japan because Japan says they could find nobody living there and soon after Koga Tatsushiro put a bonita processing plant up on the island which failed in 1940.

Now, the only reason that anyone wants to lay claim to them is because they realize what they can from the islands. That's it. Greed over nature. And we wonder why natural resources are being deplete and why there is so much strife in the world.

It is easy to understand why. GREED. We don't give a rat's behind about what is important. Only what we can get. Sad world. If aliens flew by they would tell the mothership that this planet was not done yet and it would be better not to step foot here because of human bacteria. Yeah, they would probably label us, 'bacteria".

Who gives a freaking crap! East Asia and Russia need to grow up.

troyinjapanJul. 07, 2012 - 08:41AM JST Not so fast. It is not nearly as simple as that. Let's use this as a platform. It holds both views.

No it really is as simple as that. And that it is within the defense parameters ofb the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty. And that Japanese posession and control if the islands is in the intersts of the United States and all of Asian allies who are concerned in he face of Chinese military and territorial expansion. It's not an academic issue.

Yes, I watched Ossan it as everyone else did. But I thought that they should be arrested anyway.

a lot of the taxes the japanese pay to the US government, for the staioning of their soldiers in Japan, were generated by the American consumer buying japanese manufactured products

I just cannot figure out why you did not factor the price of tea in China into that formula! LOL

I never thought I would ever see anyone try so hard to link the American consumer to the Japanese taxpayer to the U.S. military! Please. I am an American citizen and I DONT want to be linked to the U.S. military and government AT ALL.

But I simply posit that since the American military is stationed here, like it or not, (and putting Japan on the map of those who call America enemy among other things I mentioned) its not at all odd for Japanese to expect America to defend Japan, even those crumby islands.

OssanAmericaJul. 07, 2012 - 11:16AM JST

No it really is as simple as that. And that it is within the defense parameters ofb the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty.

Every time this same point keeps coming up, when the Senkakus is in the news. For God's sake go and google for a minute and see the comments by Clinton last year. NO IT IS NOT. JAPAN IS WITHIN THE DEFENSE PARAMETERS OF THE US JAPAN MUTUAL DEFENSE AGREEMENT and the US has been very evasive about ownership of the Senkakus.

I think it is you actually who keeps bringing up this point. Can you go and google for a minute and put an end to this nonsense statement. If the Japanese decide to take on the Chinese in the middle of no-man's sea of the East Asian sea, then its their fight and their fight alone.

The national government needs to be kept in check. Not doing so lead Japan into invading Korea, Manchuria and China. Not keeping them in line lead them into Pearl Harbor. I do think the EEZ zone can be negotiated and the area needs to be explored for oil gas. The islands and 12 miles around them is non negotiable. The islands must be returned to the control of Ishigawa City. The national government has to be brought under control.

The islands and 12 miles around them is non negotiable. The islands must be returned to the control of Ishigawa City. The national government has to be brought under control.

Everything is negotiable. Again it's ISHIGAKI City, and they ARE in the control of the city. The problem is that Ishihara Shintaro wants to take them away from the control of ISHIGAKI and make them a part of Tokyo, purchased with private funds.

The national government isn't the problem here, it's the Japanese version of some red-necked politicians that need to be brought under control and muzzled.

Yea Ishigaki :p no I disagree the national government is getting too powerful again. The problem is China is not willing to negotiate.

Sorry, I agree with Thomas. East Asia and Russia needs to grow up! Thumb down all you want.

Yuri, thumbs down means nothing at all. It all depends on who is there at the time voting.

Arnt these ones uninhabited? Lets just destroy the Islands with some strong firepower and call it international waters.

YuriOtaniJul. 07, 2012 - 12:41PM JST

The problem is China is not willing to negotiate.

You really think so? I think the problem is the japanese as a whole have no negotiation skills.

This listen to the other's opinion and then carry on whaling as before. They listen to the russian opinion that they might be awarded 2 of the islands and then carry on claiming all 4. They listen to Korea's experience of the tyranny of Japan's colonial occupation and then still claim the Dokdo's as theirs. They listen to the Chinese historian's showing records that show China was aware of the Senkaku islands in the 14th century and then continue to claim them as terra nullus frim the 19th century. They listen to the UN's decision on Okinotorishima not being an island and then contiue to claim that Okinotorishima is an island.

Japan wishes to impose it's own domestic narrative onto everyone else. The reason for this is that the Japanese have no skills at negotiating. Once the BS of 'wa' is swept away, Japanese society's negotiation skills boil down to the powerful impose their narrative on the others, and the other's accept that narrative.

That might work domestically but it will totally fail on the international scene. Not only because japan is not the big fish on the lake, but it is the negotiation level of a schoolyard playground, rather than international conferences.

Yuri,

DOG has it the nail right on the head. Japanese wish for others to hear and understand their concerns on so many issues and this is just one of them, but in turn does not give a wet noodle how others feel or make any attempt to relinquish one bit. You can't have it both ways. It just can't happen that way. Every single word of that post is 100% correct. Good job, Dog.

Yuri,

They weren't part of any country as far as the Japanese were concerned in 1895 when they went there and just made the decision, all on their own to annex the islands. So, why should they be part of Ishigaki city anyway? I am not saying they should go to China or Taiwan either, but the Chinese have records that the J-Gov likes to claim have less value than old toilet water as far as proving China's claim to the Islands. I am sure that most Japanese are about as informed of THAT evidence as they are about the whaling issue. Many facts escape the Japanese public because the whalers know it will work against them.

I wonder if the same applies here.

Back to argue later. Work comes first.

People getting worked up over two blokes in a fishing tolley going for a walk on some stinking rock in the ocean. Man, we gotz folks dieing of starvation in Africa!

Maybe there are some of those "Occupy-someplace" folks who'd like to make camp there and call it/them home.

This listen to the other's opinion and then carry on whaling as before. They listen to the russian opinion that they might be awarded 2 of the islands and then carry on claiming all 4. They listen to Korea's experience of the tyranny of Japan's colonial occupation and then still claim the Dokdo's as theirs. They listen to the Chinese historian's showing records that show China was aware of the Senkaku islands in the 14th century and then continue to claim them as terra nullus frim the 19th century. They listen to the UN's decision on Okinotorishima not being an island and then contiue to claim that Okinotorishima is an island.

The Japan continues to whale under provision set forth in IWC. The so-called sanctuary set by the anti-whaling nations are not based on scientific background, hence it should be deemed null as per IWC. The Japanese government claims 4 islands based on historical evidence that under no time until the Soviet occupation of 1945 that the islands southward uf Urup was under any soverignty of Soviets nor was it taken by greed from other nations. Takeshima has NOTHING to do with Japan's annexation period of Korea for they were incorporated by Japan legally via international law at that time. And for China, "records" have little to do with islands. What needs to be shown is the effective control and continued soverignty and administration of the islands. The mere fact that China themselves recognized the islands as Japanese until the 1970's (75 years since the incorporation) and were suddently claiming rights to it after UN report of the possibility of resources makes their argument even weaker. And finally, the UNCLCS did not rule Okinotorishima is not an island for they are not the authoritative body to make that decision. However, the decision to extend Japan's continental shelf based on Okinotorishima southward (Kyushu Palau) is delayed to the next review period based on rants from SK and China who both also claim EEZ on some submerged reef. Classic hypocricy.

Tokyo's naive tactic is to make 'unauthorized' landings or 'accidentally trespassings ( the coast Guard let go through the strict defense net are exclusively Japanese politicians )' becoming regular events -- Japan's neighbors are thoroughly aware of the tricks here

Take 1 : facing the two J politicians -- unenthusiastic.. sounded escorting the two men to the island

"Despite our warning, they dived into the sea from a fishing boat and reached the island,” a Japanese coastguard official said, adding that the two stayed for 90 minutes before leaving."

Take 2 : facing the activists from Taiwan -- genuine battle scenario

Several big sized coast guard vessels & three speed-boats with armed troops kept powerful warning & violently threatening the Taiwanese fishing boat (50 tons) including usual technique by ramping into the rear of one of the Taiwanese vessels. The only difference was : they did not arrest the Taiwanese as in Sept 2010 vis-a-vis the Mainland Chinese.

The mere fact that China themselves recognized the islands as Japanese until the 1970's (75 years since the incorporation) and were suddently claiming rights to it after UN report of the possibility of resources makes their argument even weaker.

So true!

At the moment the four islands belong to the Kuriharas who bought them from Kenji Koga in the 70s. Kenji bought these islands from the Japanese government in 1932 (thanks again for posting the link).

Now the government wants to buy them back? I'd say go for it! Paying 25 million yen a year in "rent" is more of a taxpayers waste of money than buying and owning them. Or isn't it, troyinjapan?

J Turner,

Paying 25 million yen a year in "rent" is more of a taxpayers waste of money than buying and owning them. Or isn't it, troyinjapan?

Hahahaha. Yeah, it would be a waste of taxpayer money to rent them out instead of buying them. Anyway, I am tired of battling with people. I am taking a break from commenting on anything. I can agree with a lot that was written by Nigel and can disagree and refute a lot as well. No, that is not a pop shot at you, Nigel. But ihope kind of took the fight out of me and has made me come to the conclusion that people just believe what they want to believe. Pointless to argue.

Nigel,

I really didn't want to get into this with anyone anymore. Like I said before, ihope took most of my fight out of me. No, I am not going to be going to battle with you. Don't have the energy for it. And it is pointless to try to change how people think. Hey, Nigel, no offense, I am just saying that things kind of seem twisted with your last post as far as I can see. Respectfully so. We will not be debating. No, thanks. Or thank you ihope!

The Japan continues to whale under provision set forth in IWC. The so-called sanctuary set by the anti-whaling nations are not based on scientific background, hence it should be deemed null as per IWC.

Yeah, right. That was all just made up. No researchers involved. Just a bunch of over emotional whale-huggers, right? Hardly. If there was no science involved, prove it. I would love to see that. I am not being cynical at all. I relish someone showing me that I am wrong. It is the only way to grow. But......

Japan does commercial whaling under provisions set forth by the IWC, because Japan is a part of the IWC and assists in establishing rules and regulations. (Yeah, I said ‘commercial’ whaling. I mean, seriously, who are we kidding?) Sometimes it works for them and then when it doesn’t, it storms out like a spoiled baby and claims racism and all sorts of nonsense about cultural insensitivity. Science this , science that, all the while doing just as you have done and claiming that there is no science involved in the whale huggers decisions. If it doesn’t like it then it should quits. I would have much more respect for it then. MUCH MORE. You calling the sanctuary “so-called” sounds like you don’t believe in it in the first place. Typical. Not based on scientific background? Where is your proof?

The Japanese government claims 4 islands based on historical evidence that under no time until the Soviet occupation of 1945 that the islands southward uf Urup was under any soverignty of Soviets nor was it taken by greed from other nations.

As far as the four northern islands are concerned, they were ceded to the Japanese by the Russians in 1875 in the Treaty of Saint Petersburg. Therefore they are Japanese. But then again they lost them after the war. Yes, yes, Japanese people I said “After” the war. Not fair. Yep 100% true. But, hey, what are you gonna do? Don’t pick a fight with your neighbors! ( No, you weren’t fighting with Russia at THAT time but if you had been a good neighbor none of this would have happened in the first place so stop crying about the islands. And as you said,

“What needs to be shown is the effective control and continued soverignty and administration of the islands.”

Well, they have done exactly what you said should be done about the Islands that China, Taiwan and Japan claim. Lots of Russians living there now. They control them and have for the longest time. Therefore they should remain Russian islands. I don't think kicking the local Russians out now would be very nice either.

Takeshima has NOTHING to do with Japan's annexation period of Korea for they were incorporated by Japan legally via international law at that time.

U.S. Foreign Affairs records clearly show that Korea became militarily occupied by Japanese forces in February 1904 and lost the ability to conduct foreign relations independently in August of 1904. Korea was powerless to dispute Japan’s illegal 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of Dokdo. A local Shimane newspaper reporting the incorporation of the islands surely is not what one would call following international law. Forced treaties and forgery of such signatures on the Koreans by Imperialistic Japan should not be considered illegal from the get-go?

If that is okay with you then I think Japan has no right to the four Northern Islands. They were seized by the Soviet Union after it declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, just a week before Japan surrendered. They were taken by the Japanese against their wishes just as Takeshima was from the Koreans. The spoils of war go to the victors as was international law in wartime anyway or in secretly occupying your neighbor, once again, who are we kidding?

Japan’s claim to the islands sure didn’t work with the US when it came to the Marcus Islands. Both situations had similarities except the U.S. said “NO” and could back it up.

And for China, "records" have little to do with islands. What needs to be shown is the effective control and continued soverignty and administration of the islands. The mere fact that China themselves recognized the islands as Japanese until the 1970's (75 years since the incorporation) and were suddently claiming rights to it after UN report of the possibility of resources makes their argument even weaker.

Yeah, I agree with you there. They sure became interested in those islands after that. Can’t fault that one at all. But if that is true, doesn’t Japan often try to support its claim to those islands by producing historical records as well? If the Japanese can do it, then why can’t China? (I can’t believe I sound like I am supporting China on anything. I am not though) Were those islands that important to Japan before the 1970’s? Not as much as you would like to think. Furthermore Japan is just as greedy as China is to start digging into the natural resources that that area holds as well. Instead of working with what you got, got to go and destroy something else and live beyond your means.

And finally, the UNCLCS did not rule Okinotorishima is not an island for they are not the authoritative body to make that decision. However, the decision to extend Japan's continental shelf based on Okinotorishima southward (Kyushu Palau) is delayed to the next review period based on rants from SK and China who both also claim EEZ on some submerged reef. Classic hypocrisy.

Clearly hypocrisy? Really, how so? I am not disagreeing with you, I would just like to know how it is hypocrisy for SK and China to claim EEZ on some submerged reef but okay for Japan to do so with a bone thin shelf that reaches out almost 600 nautical miles from its closest islands and am sure that neither CHina or South Korea are making such of a bold claim as Japan is. Guam sits on the Pacific and Philippine Sea tectonic plates, which seem to come right down from Tokyo. From the looks of it, you could consider Guam part of the Japan continental shelf, couldn’t you?

But I doubt that it is going to be ruled as part of the Palau-Kyushu Ridge in the Philippine Sea either. It just seems to damn far away to be labeled such. That is a bone thin ridge to say the least as well. I am just saying.

Yeah, right. That was all just made up. No researchers involved. Just a bunch of over emotional whale-huggers, right? Hardly. If there was no science involved, prove it. I would love to see that. I am not being cynical at all. I relish someone showing me that I am wrong. It is the only way to grow. But......

Sorry troy. probatio diabolica. This is where the burden of proof is on you.

As far as the four northern islands are concerned, they were ceded to the Japanese by the Russians in 1875 in the Treaty of Saint Petersburg. Therefore they are Japanese

False. The islands north of Etorfu were exchanged for Sahkahlin. Hence, the four islands were not part of this exchange. The four islands were taken "by force" by the Soviets in 1945.

U.S. Foreign Affairs records clearly show that Korea became militarily occupied by Japanese forces in February 1904 and lost the ability to conduct foreign relations independently in August of 1904. Korea was powerless to dispute Japan’s illegal 1905 Shimane Prefecture Inclusion of Dokdo. A local Shimane newspaper reporting the incorporation of the islands surely is not what one would call following international law. Forced treaties and forgery of such signatures on the Koreans by Imperialistic Japan should not be considered illegal from the get-go?

Probably got that from reading Korean blogs, I presume. In any case, it's not that Korea was powerless to dispute. It's that Korean government didn't know the existence for Takeshima as evidenced by complete lack of maps or documents relating to Takeshima prior to Japan's incorporation. Although, Korea was "powerless" from a standpoint of not being able conduct foreign relations(countries other than Japan), they were more than vocal when it came to negotiation with Japan. Hence, if Korea were in fact opposed to Shimane's incorporation, you would find records of it, don't you think? In any case, after the conclusion of the war, Korean forces occupied Takeshima in the 50's killing/injuring/taking hostage Japanese fishermen.

Yeah, I agree with you there. They sure became interested in those islands after that. Can’t fault that one at all. But if that is true, doesn’t Japan often try to support its claim to those islands by producing historical records as well? If the Japanese can do it, then why can’t China?

After 75 years (1895~1970) without opposition, I sincerely doubt their case will have merit. ( Miniquiers and Ecrehos i.e.)

The islands were incorporated without force in 1895 and administered by the local governments continuosly without opposition from China for 75 years.

Clearly hypocrisy? Really, how so? I am not disagreeing with you, I would just like to know how it is hypocrisy for SK and China to claim EEZ on some submerged reef but okay for Japan to do so with a bone thin shelf that reaches out almost 600 nautical miles from its closest islands and am sure that neither CHina or South Korea are making such of a bold claim as Japan is.

Because it's China and Korea who are opposing the island status of Okinotorishima while at the same time China is claiming their EEZ on reefs in South China Sea and Korea in Socotra Rock. It would be hypocritical for Japan IF and ONLY IF Japanese government is officially complaining the legal status of both China and Korea on those said locations.

Sorry troy. probatio diabolica. This is where the burden of proof is on you.

probatio diabolica…… (laugh). Not trying to be impolite at all but, cop out! If you could prove your obvious slanderous accusation, you would and you would happily rub it in our faces wholeheartedly, but since you obviously can’t you are trying to impress us with Latin terms as opposed to simple English terms like the “devil’s proof”. Well, I am not impressed one bit.

Yeah, it was just all made up. Since it is your accusation, prove it, but you can’t so you go for the cop out.

As far as the four northern islands are concerned, they were ceded to the Japanese by the Russians in 1875 in the Treaty of Saint Petersburg. Therefore they are Japanese.

False. The islands north of Etorfu were exchanged for Sahkahlin. Hence, the four islands were not part of this exchange. The four islands were taken "by force" by the Soviets in 1945.

The Treaty of Shimoda in 1855 Article 2 states: "Henceforth the boundary between the two nations shall lie between the islands of Etorofu and Uruppu. The whole of Etorofu shall belong to Japan; and the Kurile Islands, lying to the north of and including Uruppu, shall belong to Russia." The 1875 Treaty of Saint Petersburg Russia and Japan agreed that Japan would give up all rights to Sakhalin in exchange for Russia giving up all rights to the Kuril Islands in favor of Japan.

What does that all mean? Nothing at all. Who own what before is meaningless. The islands were taken by force by the Soviets. And like I said before…..

Not fair. Yep 100% true. But, hey, what are you gonna do? Don’t pick a fight with your neighbors! ( No, you weren’t fighting with Russia at THAT time but if you had been a good neighbor none of this would have happened in the first place so stop crying about the islands.

And as you said,

“What needs to be shown is the effective control and continued soverignty and administration of the islands.”

Did I stutter? Nope. Did you stutter when you said the above statement? Nope! If it should apply to Takeshima, then it should apply here. You can’t have it both ways. I know the Japanese and their supporters try to, but that is not how the rest of the world thinks, is it? Nope!

After 75 years (1895~1970) without opposition, I sincerely doubt their case will have merit. ( Miniquiers and Ecrehos i.e.) The islands were incorporated without force in 1895 and administered by the local governments continuosly without opposition from China for 75 years.

But…

The First Sino-Japanese War broke out between China and Japan in 1894 following a dispute over the sovereignty of Korea. Following its defeat, China ceded the islands of Taiwan and Penghu to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed on April 17, 1895. So, the annexation was a direct result of war.

China has historically viewed the Diaoyu as part of the Chinese province of Taiwan. (This supports both the PRC's and the Republic of China's claims.) The name "Diaoyutai" first appeared in Chinese imperial records in 1403 under the voyage of Shun Feng Hsiang Sung. By 1534, all the major islands in the Diaoyu group had been identified and named by Chen Kanin in his book Shih Liu-Chiu Lu, or Record of the Imperial Envoy to Ryukyu. The Chinese continued to use these islands and considered them part of their kingdom. Chen Kanin's Record of the Imperial Envoy to Ryukyu helps explain the Diaoyu's position in relation to the Ryukyus. The Ryukyus were an independent kingdom up until their annexation by Japan during the late nineteenth century, and they regularly received envoys from the Chinese court on the mainland. These envoys used the Diaoyu as navigational markers during the China-to-Ryukyu voyages. Chen Kanin, sent by the Ming Emperor in 1534, wrote that the Ryukyu natives on board his vessel said nothing about reaching home until the boat neared Kume Island, further north from the Diaoyu. Nowhere in Chinese records are the Diaoyu considered the territory of Ryukyu.

Personally, I support Taiwan’s claim to the islands on these grounds….

Geographically, the islands are closer to Taiwan. In addition to the shorter distance between Taiwan and the Diaoyu islands, the ocean between them is only 200 feet deep. Conversely, the seafloor drops to more than 1000 feet in between Diaoyu and Okinawa. Clearly, the Diaoyu are part of the Chinese continental shelf. And according to some Taiwan has used those islands throughout history. It all depends on who you believe on this one.

But that is just me.

Legally, since they have been administered by the Japanese and nobody else showed interest in them until the 1970’s they belong to Japan.

But wait…….Not so fast. Here is where the right wingers have got it wrong.

The [Diaoyu] islands de facto became part of Japan when Japan seized all of Taiwan in 1895, and the Chinese argue that they became part of China in 1945 when Japan surrendered at the end of the second world war. The reality is that in 1945 the Americans took over the islands and returned them, along with Okinawa, to Japan in 1972, a year after the mainland Chinese government had laid formal claim to the islands. So it isn’t really that the Chinese became interested in the islands after it was believed that they held an abundance of natural resources but that that the US gave the islands to Japan.

China can prove that it rightfully possesses sovereignty over the Diaoyu islands in law. This point is mainly proven through Japan's consent to the Potsdam and Cairo Declarations in 1945. In these treatises, Japan agreed to return all territory it wrongfully and forcefully took from China. After Japan signed the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Allied Powers in 1951, and the finalization of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty in 1952, Japanese annexation of the territory it acquired before World War II became void. This meant that Taiwan and "all islands appertaining" (Okinawa Reversion Treaty, 111) reverted to Chinese sovereignty. This included the Diaoyu.

Because it's China and Korea who are opposing the island status of Okinotorishima while at the same time China is claiming their EEZ on reefs in South China Sea and Korea in Socotra Rock. It would be hypocritical for Japan IF and ONLY IF Japanese government is officially complaining the legal status of both China and Korea on those said locations.

Actually, not only China and South Korea have repeatedly expressed concern over this but also Australia. The atoll is a group of rocks, some 1,700 kilometers south of Tokyo. Japan has spent large sums of money for more than two decades on buttressing it to prevent it from disappearing into the sea. Japan's claim of an outer continental shelf based on Okinotori Atoll was not acknowledged by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

Furthermore, Japan submitted a request to the commission covering some 740,000 square kilometers of what it called its continental shelf. But the commission recognized only 310,000 sq km and the area where the atoll is based was not recognized by the commission. Granting such status would also prevent other countries from fishing and sharing the rich natural resources in an exclusive economic zone that is clearly part of international waters and should stay that way.

According to Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, rocks that cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf status. It is similar to the failed British attempt to claim an EEZ around Rockall, an uninhabited granite outcropping in the Atlantic Ocean. The UK eventually dropped its claim in the 1990s when other countries objected.

What is your point here? Sorry, I didn’t get it.

Well, my point is this. You are supportive of Japan. Korean blogs? Maybe. But how about this. I don't just blindly follow what I am told.

Which leads me back to my point. Some people believe just want they want to believe. Pointless to argue for every argument has a hole. Even mine. And to not admit so, is to show true arrogance.

Not trying to be impolite at all but, cop out!

Troy. My point is that establishment of sanctuary is not based on scientific background because I can't find it. What you are essentially asking me to do is exactly that. "Devils proof".

The islands were taken by force by the Soviets. And like I said before…..

Yes. That's why Japan has a legitimate claim to the islands. That's my whole point.

Nope! If it should apply to Takeshima, then it should apply here. You can’t have it both ways

No. They were, like the Northern territories, taken by force. Hence Japan has a legitimate claim to the islands. That's my point.

The First Sino-Japanese War broke out between China and Japan in 1894 following a dispute over the sovereignty of Korea. Following its defeat, China ceded the islands of Taiwan and Penghu to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed on April 17, 1895. So, the annexation was a direct result of war.

But the islands were never part of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Hence, Senkaku was not taken by force. This is proven by the fact that after the war, ROC made no claim to the islands and continue to recognize it as Japanese territory until under the U.N. research indicated that there might be a underwater resrouces near the islands in 1971.

Actually, not only China and South Korea have repeatedly expressed concern over this but also Australia.

Where is the note verbale from Australia?

Furthermore, Japan submitted a request to the commission covering some 740,000 square kilometers

Yes. 4 out the 7 extension of the continental shelf was approved while 2 were rejected and 1 (South of Okinotori/Kyushu-Palau) to be disgussed in the next review. The UNCLS Article 121 is vague in that although Okinori satisfy "a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide", Japan's argument is that the definition of "Rock" is undefined in the convention and that no where does it state that it has to satisfy both conditions to be considered as an island. To get back to my point again, I'm merely pointing out the hypocricy of both China and SK who are objecting "island" claim of Okinotori while at the same time, both countries are essentially doing the same in other areas mentioned above.

You are supportive of Japan

Were Northern territories, Takeshima, and Senkaku taken by force by Japan from other countries? The answer is no. Were Northern territories taken by force by Soviets from Japan? Yes. Were Takeshima taken by force by SK from Japan? Yes. Were Senkaku taken by force by China from Japan? Not yet.

Those are the reasons why I support Japan in these disputes. I hope that clear things up.

Nigel,

In all due respect, (laugh) Just plain comical.

It just goes to prove what I said earlier. Pointless. You have just proven my point in that people believe what they want to and will make excuses to negate everything else that goes against their belief system. What a waste of time. You probably learned more from me, than I, you.

Believe it or not, I mean no disrespect to you.

You probably learned more from me, than I, you

That's a definite NO since it appears you just looked up the material just recently. No disrepect to you, BTW.

You probably learned more from me, than I, you.

I actually didn't mean to send that. That sound really arrogant. My apologies.

That's a definite NO since it appears you just looked up the material just recently

What do you mean "definate no"? And why would you think I just looked anything up recently? I'm sorry, are you trying to say that you are the only one who is informed on these issues? Could it be that one of us on this side can also throw down?

What do you mean "definate no"? And why would you think I just looked anything up recently? I'm sorry, are you trying to say that you are the only one who is informed on these issues? Could it be that one of us on this side can also throw down?

I meant "definitely without a doubt" NO. And your counter argument has been seen before by others here in JT on related issues. You have offered nothing new. Sorry. And no. I'm not trying to say that I'm the only one who is informed of the issues. And no. You did not throw it down. Your shot was rejected to the second row.

No disrespect, BTW.

japan shoudl place a foreigenr on teh iusaldns to show that others also support their case. There is one on this thread who i woudl gladly pay extra taxes to be shipped there.

Please go there and support Japan, you knwo it makes snese. Put your money where your mouth is so to speak.