U.N. to consider validity of China's claim over disputed islands

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

  • 15

    Matthew Simon

    China, is like a spoiled and a bully child. I hope that the UN recognizes this and gives them a spanking.

  • 2

    Elvensilvan

    I agree with you Matthew, but we can see from history that China has been quite stubborn, even in the UN council.

    The only thing I'm quite amused at is the fact that in most of these disputed islands, the costs of keeping each other from the islands (plane sorties, boat chases) could actually cost more than the resources that could be kept by these remote islands.

  • 2

    Isthiezak

    Part of the same landmass?! That would technically give China the right to claim most of Asia, most of Europe and pretty much all of Africa!

  • 3

    YuriOtani

    It would be a very bad thing if the Peoples Republic of China gets these islands. It would place Okinawa within range of Chinese fighter/bombers. If they secure these islands they will demand the rest of the Ryukyu islands.

  • -12

    neobios

    Come on guys stop bashing China already, at least they discuss the matter with UN rather than having water cannon duel which I doubt would make any progress on the issue.

  • 5

    gmarcotte

    using the continental shelf argument you could say all of Japan belongs to china ... I dont think there is any scientific arguments one way or the other.

  • 3

    DeDeMouse

    Funny what China did today is pretty much same like what Japan did in pre-WW2. Which is "expansion". And again, U.S interference as unnecessary intermediary, waiting who's gonna start first & eat them.

  • 7

    commanteer

    Some people here actually believe the UN approximates an objective body? China can easily buy off or coerce member states to side with them on this issue. Japan has less to trade in this regard. I think China will get the islands one way or another. They want their blood. Japan, with an ageing population, fading economy and bankrupt government, cannot challenge China. I say this as someone who sides with Japan. The best they can hope for is to play the victim card for all it's worth when China finally does get these useless rocks.

  • 4

    OssanAmerica

    ". The U.N. commission assesses the scientific validity of claims, but any disputes have to be resolved between states, not by the commission."

    So what's the point?

  • -14

    Takumi Saito

    @YuriOtani Excuse me, But do China ever invade anyone? or maybe because China is "communist"?

  • 2

    LiveInTokyo

    I hope the UN gets to decide this as well. I think it would finally settle the problem once and for all. The only problem is that one side`s pride is going to be very, very badly hurt.

    As for China trying to make further claims on Okinawa, I doubt that very much. I think it would be similar to Argentina claiming the Falklands - the island inhabitants wish to remain British. I can`t ever imagine the Okinawans wishing to become Chinese citizens.

  • 3

    paulinusa

    "The United Nations is planning to consider later this year the scientific validity of a claim by China that a group of disputed islands in the East China Sea..."

    Will be interesting to see what kind of "science" China comes up with. More like junk science maybe?

  • 1

    tokyo-star

    For all intents and purposes, how do the UN Commission and ICJ differ? Would they come up with different results?

  • 12

    blackrock

    Excuse me, But do China ever invade anyone? or maybe because China is "communist"?

    Was it supposed to be a rhetoric question? If it's not, then Vietnam, Laos, India, Myanmar, Mongolia, Philippines ring some bells

  • 3

    Disillusioned

    So, what will happen if the UN rules in favor of China. I know it is unlikely, but........

  • 2

    90292

    While we're at it, why don't any of the Japanese companies that suffered major losses take the Chinese government to court for compensation, for failure to keep civil order and protect property after the initial rioting? After all, most of the damage occurred after the first day or so of the mob protests, so it wasn't like there was no warning.

  • 2

    sfjp330

    DisillusionedJan. 25, 2013 - 10:03AM JST So, what will happen if the UN rules in favor of China. I know it is unlikely, but........

    So what is UN? Mostly funded by U.S. and U.S. interest? Who is going to enforce it? Nobody. So nothing will change.

  • 6

    House Atreides

    The Philippines are also taking China to an arbitration tribunal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). China responded by claiming "indisputable sovereignty." The Philippines should mirror what the Chinese do vis-a-vis the Senkaku Islands in upholding their own claim to the areas around Scarborough Shoal.

  • 5

    ReformedBasher

    @blackrock

    And Tibet. Now they are claiming land to the West by constructing fake ruins, proven to be only 5 years old by carbon dating.

    There there was an expedition that went all the way to the Black Sea so all of the "Stans" will end up being claimed.

    Let's not forget they supposedly sent junks to America and Africa.

  • -1

    Crazedinjapan

    Even a child that likes puzzles could look at a map and point to Japan if asked "who do you think these islands belong to?"

    China is basically trying to say the island chain ( which would include Japan ) belongs to them...next stop indonisia , Malaysia .....

    In 1895 the islands were under the control of Japan with USA holding them when they defeated Japan. China has no claim in these islands scientifically ( belongs to ring of fire ) like said above China will come up with all types of stubborn illogical junk science that favors their wants and greed.

    The UN application is only issued to try to gain a favorable view towards themselves ...bully that's soon to turn to insolent tantrum throwing child.

  • -19

    Takumi Saito

    @blackrock Apart from Mongolia(which a part of Qing dynasty), China never had a full war with its neighbor(except Japan at WW2). Please elaborate if you think China is super evil than western imperialist and USSR combined. China only want to recover its territorial boundary that has been disturb during western imperialism. This hatred to China is seriously overrated. I'm Japanese and i love my neighbor. You guys obviously have zero idea about eastern history and culture at all.

  • -1

    Redcliff

    @ House Atreides

    " The Philippines should mirror what the Chinese do vis-a-vis the Senkaku Islands in upholding their own claim to the areas around Scarborough Shoal"

    I think Philippines is currently considering taking this action and China has also commented that the Issue between their two Countries should be resolved through Discussion and Negotiation.

    The Philippine case in my opinion seems to be much straight forward than the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute. Under the Treaty of Peace signed in 1951 The Treaty specifically states that the Spratlys and the Paracels are China Territories. Moreover in 1997 a Philippines Judge handed down its finding and concluded that the Chinese fishermen who were detained around the Scarborough Shoal by the Philippines Navy was illegal as the Philippines has no legal rights as yet that the area is exclusively Philippines based upon the 1978 Presidential Decree.

  • 7

    Tokiyo

    @Takumi Saito: But it looks bad when they already have so much land and they continually want to engulf everything else around them. Plus, How far back do you want to argue? they Qing dynasty should not be a point of reference anymore than the any point of their history. Additionally they have marginalized all the minorities and continue to make them suffer - if not at war with other nations there certainly much war going on within its boundaries.

  • -2

    smithinjapan

    "...although Japan says the world body should not be involved."

    They don't seem to mind when the world body is involved in its many other disputes.

  • -9

    Takumi Saito

    @Tokiyo But that's the land they had. You want to blame India too because their land is big? How about native Americans? During imperial era, all minorities are always suffer and discriminated. All nations did that. British, France, U.S, and so on.

  • 4

    House Atreides

    I think Philippines is currently considering taking this action and China has also commented that the Issue between their two Countries should be resolved through Discussion and Negotiation.

    The Philippines has been trying to discuss the issue with China since 1995. The fact that China has not reciprocated shows that China isn't interested in dialog. Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario:

    "The Philippines has exhausted almost all political and diplomatic avenues for a peaceful negotiated settlement of its maritime dispute with China. On numerous occasions, dating back to 1995, the Philippines has been exchanging views with China to peacefully settle these disputes. To this day, a solution is still elusive. We hope that the arbitral proceedings shall bring this dispute to a durable solution."

  • 0

    Kazuaki Shimazaki

    Still, one has to admit that they are playing the game quite well. It is a game that the West seems to have forgotten how to play, Japan perhaps most of all.

  • 2

    viking68

    China already knows the expected results of the UN, or they wouldn't have asked for it.

    It is also non-binding, so they can disregard a bad result.

    China should take their case to a court where evidence is heard and something more binding than a committee opinion can be had.

    I wonder how the shelf argument would work taking into account Japan's land mass and assuming China cannot claim Japan's main islands because it sits on the continental shelf.

    This whole question just needs to be shut down one way or another. From my perspective, I hope it is in favor of Japan just to stop or slow down an expansionist China. Or, they will be over for dinner soon.

  • 2

    cabadaje

    @Disillusioned

    So, what will happen if the UN rules in favor of China. I know it is unlikely, but........

    Let's not forget the UN scientific committee is not ruling in favor of anyone. Their mandate is to determine, geologically, the source of the island chains. The politics of the issue are a different matter altogether, and will have greater bearing on mineral rights than anything else, although who owns the and will be a far greater influence on that particular decision.

    However, to answer your question, nothing will happen. Sovereignty is a purely political matter. Neither scientific claims nor historical claims are significant when it comes to territory. It's all about paperwork. And Japan has got its ducks in a row, when it comes to that. On paper, Japan has the claim to the land.

    @Kazuaki Shimazaki

    Still, one has to admit that they are playing the game quite well. It is a game that the West seems to have forgotten how to play, Japan perhaps most of all.

    I have to disagree. China is playing the game at a rather regional level, almost a tribal level, of politics. It's not as bad as Saddam Hussein, who was still under the impression that parts of the war would be fought on camelback, striding down from the dunes, swords waving in the air, but it's close. China's coy little "I'm not touching you!" game with national ships, national aircraft, government ships, government aircraft, (next step, military ships, military aircraft) reminds us of similarly coy claims from Saddam "WMD? What WMD? I don't have WMDs! Oh, all those guys moving packages around down there? No, no, don't worry about them, you don't have to inspect them, they aren't hiding WMDs..."

    See, that's the thing about saber-rattling. It works find at the tribal level. It even works at the regional level, although not as well (indeed, a lone man facing down a string of tanks is enough to destroy your credibility). It does NOT, however, work at the global level. At the global level, you don't bluff. There is way too much at stake. It doesn't matter if you don't really have WMDs, it doesn't matter if you don't really intend to fire or invade another country; If you pretend to have a saber ready to draw, the default assumption at the global level is that you are willing to draw it.

    That's the part that China doesn't seem to get. The game it's playing...that's the junior varsity rules. In the big leagues, the rules are tougher and the consequences are harsher.

  • 2

    gogogo

    China already went to the UN and admitted that China signed away the land to China. They said "Japan tricked us into signing it".... China admitted they don't own it.

  • 7

    gogogo

    should read.. "signed away the land to Japan".

    Get an edit button JT!

  • -3

    Athletes

    The game it's playing...that's the junior varsity rules. In the big leagues, the rules are tougher and the consequences are harsher.

    PRC requested UN for continental shelf survey. Although it is more symbolic than decisive outcome, it has showed the civilized manner for respect of others.The difference between US and PRC is US went to Irag alone without UN security council approval. US may be touch to others however it has never followed toucher rules of UN. The reason was US is a special nation on that earth for pursuing her interest. It will not abide the international law for her interest.

    US former president Bush arrogantly declared "The course of that nation is not depending on other". PRC may be still immature however it has no high noon policy with lone rider attitude. PRC also had gut to shot down the US survelliance plane and captured the crew many years ago. Crew was captured for many weeks and US resolution was only diplomatic afford for begging PRC for releasing the crew. They have never brought their harsher consequence for educating PRC. It was impressive.

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

    Therefore their action speak louder than words. PRC still has not been a member of big leage. However it had experience of settling with members of big league in 1950 with US and 1962 with Soviet respectively. They do not like or can not be bullied by any of big boys. Unlike PRC, US has never had gut to settle with other big leage member of Russia.

  • 1

    praack

    @sfjp330 "So what is UN? Mostly funded by U.S. and U.S. interest?" LOL - we pay yes- but influence is much much less- out veto power on the security council is the only thing that really is our power. all other areas are now under the control of countries not paying much at all.

    personally i would rather cut back- only pay a small amount- make some of these other countries see what it takes to fund their programs.

  • 1

    LFRAgain

    "“Recommendations of the commission with regard to the submission will not prejudice future delimitation of the continental shelf between China and the states concerned,” said the executive summary of China’s submission published on the commission’s website."

    In other words, even if the commission finds that China's claims are scientifically unfounded, China will continue to press Japan on the issue.

  • 0

    billyshears

    @saito takumi: The West has to be circumspect about anything China does. From my American point of view, the Chinese government is despicable: poor human rights, censorship (even the latest James Bond movie! and a forum such as this would probably be closed down), refusal to give their citizens information deemed contrary to their system's survival or which might show the government in a bad light (demanded that the American embassy in Beijing do not give out the true level of pollution in the city), ruthlessly puts down all opposition (or any group it deems threatens their own elitist power system), very little religious freedom, has obvious expansionist aims (incursions into Vietnamese, Philipino terrority etc. and invasion of Tibet), and supports and aids pariah states (North Korea, Syria etc.) and teaches its children that democracy would be bad for China. Maybe all this stuff is acceptable to the Chinese people, but, as its economic influence begins to spread throughout the world, the thought of China becoming the number one world power is very troubling for those who cherish democracy.

  • 4

    Yubaru

    China only want to recover its territorial boundary that has been disturb during western imperialism. This hatred to China is seriously overrated. I'm Japanese and i love my neighbor. You guys obviously have zero idea about eastern history and culture at all.

    Geez how about using this arguement to allow Mongolia to reclaim what it lost to Chinese imperialism? Think that would work?

  • -1

    Sentiments

    Yeah PRC is trying to build a valid argument for their claims. The UN survey will be one small part with almost no significance. Of course it is given that the continental shelf argument can only be applied to limited spots of the world. In this case it is impossible. Whatever the result the only looser will be UN authority and they now it. The question is if China, as a potential big player, are so occupied with themselves that they are prepared to sacrifice UN for such a hopeless matter. This matter will be one more act that will reveal weather PRC choose to act like a "banana-republic" or if they indeed has grown enough to start act like a big responsible player.

  • -1

    megosaa

    whle they're at it they might as well claim hawaii...

  • 0

    Redcliff

    " That's the part that China doesn't seems to get.. The game its playing,,,,that's the junior varsity rules. In the big league the rules are tougher and the consequences are harsher"

    So China as a permanent Security Member in the United Nation can only understand how to play the junior varsity rule but not the big league. You dare eluding yourself.

  • -2

    Takumi Saito

    @billyshears China is young democracy nation. Or maybe i should say, all non ex-colonial Asian nations. Japan will never be a democracy nation too if they not fallen to U.S hand. We experienced feudal system much longer than the west. So if you want to apply rampant democracy to China today, i bet my head, China will be divided into a small nations. They have zero idea what "democracy" actually is. You can't expect rampant democracy when society is not yet fully civilized. So everything should step by step. Last thing, you can't force your notion way of life to others.

    @Yubaru I'm talking about post imperial era. Logic please.

  • -2

    basroil

    megosaaJan. 25, 2013 - 02:20PM JST

    whle they're at it they might as well claim hawaii...

    They already claimed Okinawa was part of China, so it's only a matter of time.

    Interestingly, the claims actually have nothing to do with the islands regardless of what the clearly incorrect headline states. They have to do with economic zone rights, which are very different than land rights. It's a clear ploy at getting within the 200km economic zone to siphon off gas and oil regardless of who gets the islands.

  • 2

    JanesBlonde

    If the UN comes back and says to China NO THE ISLANDS BELONG TO JAPAN ... then the Chinese Communist Party will do what they do with all UN resolutions and recommendations that they don't like .... COMPLETELY IGNORE THEM AND PRETEND THEY DO NOT EXSIST.

    It's OK for CHINA to claim that the Tibetan's "Just signed over there country to China willing" ..... But when it comes to the island dispute .... China claims that "Japan tricked us into signing it over".

    What a bunch of lying, greedy, corrupt crooks. I am glad to see Japan taking the lead and standing up to these regional thugs, they are nothing but trouble.

  • 2

    Eautaceux Janais

    I want whatever the Chinese leaders are smoking.

  • 0

    highball7

    The U.N. has no authority over sovereignty. Neither China nor Japan can gain anything official from the U.N. in regards to the legitimacy of these islands. However, if you put human beings on the islands and they declares independence, that's a whole other story.

    The only thing China or Japan can say is," Ha, see what everyone else is saying about this!" That's pretty much it.

    Sovereignty over something that is currently disputed is normally decided through peaceful negotiations or war. There is no other way around it. U.N. is irrelevant to this issue.

  • 1

    cabadaje

    @Athletes

    US may be touch to others however it has never followed toucher rules of UN. The reason was US is a special nation on that earth for pursuing her interest. It will not abide the international law for her interest.

    US former president Bush arrogantly declared "The course of that nation is not depending on other". PRC may be still immature however it has no high noon policy with lone rider attitude. PRC also had gut to shot down the US survelliance plane and captured the crew many years ago. ... Unlike PRC, US has never had gut to settle with other big leage member of Russia.

    Sounds like you have a real mad-on for the US. I'm just curious as to what point there is in mentioning them? What the US has or hasn't done isn't going to change the behaviour that China is displaying.

    @Redcliff

    So China as a permanent Security Member in the United Nation can only understand how to play the junior varsity rule but not the big league. You dare eluding yourself.

    I tried eluding myself, but I was ridiculously easy to find. As for China, I won't presume to state whether they have the capacity to understand or the ability to play at a higher level, however I will say that the way they are acting now is the same way that they have acted at the lower national and regional levels. If they can understand the big league rules, they would be well-advised to actually follow them.

  • -3

    Yubaru

    Yubaru I'm talking about post imperial era. Logic please.

    If you are then you know the Senkaku Islands are Japans, you can't have it both ways.

  • 0

    cramp

    uhm no, historically diaoyu belongs to china but they had to give it up during an unjustified attack by jpn(incident nonsense)...and it never belonged to the US so really, they cannot give away something which they do not have inherent rights to

  • -1

    Athletes

    cabadaje

    In your 1st paragraph, you posted as

    China's coy little "I'm not touching you!" game with national ships, national aircraft, government ships, government aircraft, (next step, military ships, military aircraft) reminds us of similarly coy claims from Saddam "WMD? What WMD? I don't have WMDs! Oh, all those guys moving packages around down there? No, no, don't worry about them, you don't have to inspect them, they aren't hiding WMDs..."

    PRC was not only played touching game with US crew and Plane. But also they captured US plane and researched and analyzed whatever they want for many weeks. Unlike Saddam, PRC was not boosting with talks, they showed with their action. They are not the one being inspected by US as Saddam Lab. They were the one who inspected US plane and interrogated the crew. Therefore your post was misleading.

    In your 1st post you posted as

    It even works at the regional level, although not as well (indeed, a lone man facing down a string of tanks is enough to destroy your credibility). It does NOT, however, work at the global level.

    In my knowledge, middle east was a regional level of US play ground for experiments. US destroyed many dictators for the name of liberation. Interestingly most of them were trained and armed by US before. Therefore US has no credibility for blaming PRC as trouble maker. Reality is other way around. Globally US wanted to bring the mess to Asia for region of instability and Chaos. I think disunity and mistrust of Asia will bring the nightmare like middle east.

    In your 1st paragraph, you posted as

    That's the part that China doesn't seem to get. The game it's playing...that's the junior varsity rules.

    In fact PRC doesn't seem to bossing and policing others. It will be always junior member for global stage. US has not followed UN rule or international law as senior member for many occasion. Telling PRC to grow up and abide the international system sound like double standard. Senior member should be the role model for moral standard and conduct.

  • 2

    Tamarama

    “There is no doubt that the Senkaku Islands are an inherent part of the territory of Japan in light of historical facts and based upon international law. The Senkaku Islands are under the valid control of Japan,”

    Then they should have no problem having it reviewed by the UN. If the UN agrees with Japan, China are out in the cold on this one.

  • 0

    billyshears

    @takuma saito

    Last thing, you can't force your notion way of life to others.

    I never said I wanted to force democracy on China. What I did say (and specifically mentioned as "from my point of view") was that as one who cherishes democracy, my fear was an anti-democratic regime like China's could well become the number one power in the world. Please read posts more carefully before commenting. Plus, I`m not sure what your notion of "rampant" democracy implies.

  • 4

    Joselito Asi

    Things get funny here. China has been asking U.N. to mediate with the disputed islands in Japan, but wouldn't want U.N. to intercede with the islands claimed by China in the Philippines. Which side of coin are you China?

  • 0

    Barbara Reder

    i hope the UN does the right thing. China is spoiled and should take care of their own ppl instead worry about these islands.

  • 0

    Jobert Gomia

    REDCLIFF PLEASE READ ......http://ph.news.yahoo.com/understanding-philippines-unclos-arbitral-submission-051003340.html

  • -1

    issa1

    What's mine is not yours but what is yours is mine. Hmm, good thinking!

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    crampJan. 25, 2013 - 06:31PM JST uhm no, historically diaoyu belongs to china but they had to give it up during an unjustified attack by jpn(incident >nonsense)...and it never belonged to the US so really, they cannot give away something which they do not have >inherent rights to

    Just one of China's big lies. The Senkakus were never "taken" not "given up" by China (Qing Dynasty) in the Sino-Japanese War. They were incorporated as uninhabited isalands in January 1885. The Sino-Japanese War resulted in the Treaty of Shimonoseki of April 1885 in which the Senkakus are not mentioned at all one way other other. The world has never recognized the Senkakus as having been taken by force, hence they were exempt from territories taken away from Imperial Japan, such as Taiwan and the Paracels, at the end of WWII in accordance with the Cairo declaration. These islands were never Chinese, never inhabited by Chinese and actually considered to be Japanese as evidenced by Chinese maps from he 1950s and 60s. China's entire claim was created in 1970 on the possibility of oil and gas, and is now a crucial part of the Chinese military agenda of breaking the first island chain, along with the South China Sea, as stated by the Chinese PLA Navy themselves as far back as 2003.

  • 1

    cabadaje

    @Athletes

    PRC was not only played touching game with US crew and Plane. But also they captured US plane and researched and analyzed whatever they want for many weeks. Unlike Saddam, PRC was not boosting with talks, they showed with their action. They are not the one being inspected by US as Saddam Lab. They were the one who inspected US plane and interrogated the crew. Therefore your post was misleading.

    Ah, I see. I was giving China the benefit of the doubt that they did not actually intend to go to war over these islands. You are assuming that they are not bluffing and fully intend to engage in warfare. From, that perspective, yes I could see how you would believe it is misleading.

    Personally, I don't think China is stupid enough to go to war over these islands, I maintain my position that it is bluffing, and that the bluff is a mistake with the potential to backfire enormously.

    In my knowledge, middle east was a regional level of US play ground for experiments. US destroyed many dictators for the name of liberation. Interestingly most of them were trained and armed by US before. Therefore US has no credibility for blaming PRC as trouble maker. Reality is other way around. Globally US wanted to bring the mess to Asia for region of instability and Chaos. I think disunity and mistrust of Asia will bring the nightmare like middle east.

    Not seeing your point. The comment under discussion was whether or not China was playing the game well. It isn't. China lacks subtlety. It lacks discretion. It lacks flexibility. The US is pretty damn good at the game. We've killed heaven only knows how many #2 Al Quaeda leaders (not a job position too many people are vying for nowadays), and yet you don't hear an uproar. We've got our military withing launching distance of many, many, different places that really don't like the idea of American military being just over the horizon. How do we get away with all this? Because we are very good at playing the game. We are very good at showing people the benefits of working with us, and very clear regarding the consequences of reneging. If we like you as a potential leader of your little plot of land, we will back you, we will train you, and we will support you. If you decide you don't need us anymore and try to worm out of the deal, you get replaced. There's never been a secret there, and no global country has been surprised to see it happen.

    In fact PRC doesn't seem to bossing and policing others. It will be always junior member for global stage. US has not followed UN rule or international law as senior member for many occasion. Telling PRC to grow up and abide the international system sound like double standard. Senior member should be the role model for moral standard and conduct.

    Moral standard and conduct?

    We are talking about global politics. Moral standards are what are agreed upon by the major players, not by the little leaguers, in exactly the same way that a countries moral standards are dictated by members of that country, not by expatriates who decide to live there. Conduct is following the rules as written, not as imagined. There is no set hierarchy at the global level; leadership is achieved not through influence (which is why the UN is generally disregarded by the major players) but rather through quiet power. The amateur yells out the move he intends to make; the professional is already successfully walking away when his move gets noticed. Global politics isn't like national politics, and continuing to use that framework for it is going to lead to a lot of confusion in deciphering the news we see in the media.

    Is it a double standard? Do senior countries get special privileges? Yes and no. A country that understands how the game is played is afforded a certain amount of respect as a player. As experience and respect accumulates, other countries are willing to risk themselves by allying with you. It isn't really a special privilege as much as it is simply reasonable behaviour. A somewhat decent example might be a neighborhood. A homeowner who maintains his house and his yard gathers a certain amount of respect from his neighbors. A homeowner that threatens force to get what he wants doesn't get that respect. People are more willing to deal with the stable neighbor than with the unstable one, simply because he is a known quantity, whereas there is no way to tell whether the angry one will stop demanding things once one gives in (indeed, history has shown the exact opposite).

    Now, keep in mind that none of this has anything to do with being "nice" or "mean", or "good" and "bad", or even "love" and "hate". Those emotional constructs have little to nothing to do with decisions made at the global level. Earlier, some people made comments about the "hatred against China". In all honesty, the vast majority of the US doesn't even think about China, and when they do, the emotional state is more along the lines of being mildly put-off, at best. No one thinks China is evil for wanting the islands; however they do think China is not acting in a stable way, and this is doubly-disappointing because for a while there, China did really seem to be cleaning up it's act. The hope was with the influx of wealth and exposure to the West, China would be able to moderate some of its imperialistic tendencies, but they seem to be as strong as ever, and now that China thinks that it holds influence, it is attempting to use that influence to enter into global politics.

    But again, influence isn't what gets things done at the global stage. Simply put, the global players will quietly, discretely, prepare for what they believe is coming, and wait for the final move to be made, for China to commit to a course. If China chooses a course that will make it a good neighbor, they will gain a little of that global respect. If they choose to remain at the country level, the global players will continue to shut it out. No one wants a poser at the table for the professionals.

  • -2

    Takumi Saito

    @billyshears China is on the step of political tutelage. Like i said, everything should step by step. Also China isn't completely anti-democratic pure evil nation. This is what happen when you only know China based on TV. Kinda ignorant i should say. China doesn't ask anyone who should be number one power in the world. Like no one ask British empire & U.S should be number one at the time.

    @Yubaru Am i stated who should owns Senkaku? Nope.

  • 1

    Jonathan Harston

    Japan has missed a trick here. They should have said: hurray! yes, go ahead, here's all our documentary evidence, when it's done pass the findings directly to the International Court of Justice, as we've been trying to get China to agree to for 40 years.

  • 0

    michikokada

    @cabadaje, Japanese AND Chinese KNOW the US is VERY good at the game but we just think the US shouldn't set the playground in OUR seas. We all like fish and we want the fish to stay in East Asians' bowels, hence hands off, get back to Hawaii and we promise not to attack pearl harbour again ;)

  • -2

    ubikwit

    Good for the UN.

    No need to meet the irrational request of the Japanese side.

  • -1

    flowers

    Notice that Japan’s UN mission no longer used “terra nullius” as a claim any more but instead stated, “The islands were put under Japan’s control in 1895 and were part of the post-World War II U.S. military occupation zone from 1945-72.” To put it bluntly, Japan stole them and acted as though Japan owned them. Both Japan and China have claims based on historical facts and international law, but think about these. China has a lot more historical facts which some were not even “made in China,” and Japan couldn’t even dispute or respond to some of those facts. Some previous posters had mentoned that China had not opposed the 1953 San Francisco treaty and therefore on the basis of estoppel have forsaked the islands by sheer carelessness in foreign policy on grounds of international law. However, according to Zhou Enlai's public statement in 1953 explicitly stated "we will not accept any consensus in the 1953 San Francisco treaty as it is illegal that we are not invited". You can see that Zhou Enlai's statement already covered the islands by implication. Also, Japan has violated both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration which specifically stated that "Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed" "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido , Kyushu , Shikoku" only. Notice that Okinawa was not even included. The only valid claim that Japan has is the effective control of the islands, but that is now also shaky as China has proved that she can get in and out freely. Another point is Abe had mentioned before about “territorial disputes should be resolved legally,” but now “Japan says the world body should not be involved,” and even tried to block China’s submission. Do you see the contradiction here? Why do you think Japan is so afraid of China’s legal approach? China is trying to cover all the basis here.

  • 1

    cabadaje

    @Michikokada

    Japanese AND Chinese KNOW the US is VERY good at the game but we just think the US shouldn't set the playground in OUR seas.

    Again, this is about global politics, not local fences. The US no more sets the playground than the local bully sets the playground at the schoolyard. Both just take advantage of the rules.

  • -1

    Athletes

    Japanese AND Chinese KNOW the US is VERY good at the game but we just think the US shouldn't set the playground in OUR seas.

    The problem of US is even some of Allies has disgusted behaviors of misconduct, fraud and deception of many misadventures. Being Ally of US means it has sweet promise for protecting for the worst case scenario. Who knows what will happen in the future. History has showed US has been always fair weather friend and betrayed anyone for her interest. It want to act as traffic police for others to abide the rules. However it has never followed rules by itself. It has one standard for other and one for itself. The more US involved the more chaotic and mess.

    Again, this is about global politics, not local fences. The US no more sets the playground than the local bully sets the playground at the schoolyard. Both just take advantage of the rules.

    Local residents will not tolerate about messing their neighborhood for narrow interest. US base is the one who is bulling the locals. It has no moral obligation, respect of civilians and honor of mutual trust. It has to make her untidy and messy house is in order first before educating others. Although I wish to add more I refrain for not being impolite. That world is no longer in 1960s domino nightmare of cold war era.

  • -1

    billyshears

    @saito

    Also China isn't completely anti-democratic pure evil nation. This is what happen when you only know China based on TV. Kinda ignorant i should say.

    What is it with you making up your own quotes for others' comments. Are you living in your own stereotypical world- view and then attributing that to every one else? I never mentioned "pure evil nation". Where did you get that from? I am talking about the Chinese government. Your unfounded comments must reflect what goes on in your own head. That's "kinda" ignorant. The fact is the Chinese government is anti-democratic; its new-found economic might is giving it a burgeoning, pervasive international influence and an ever-increasing, aggressive military capability . What is more, the Chinese government (and its educational system) has purposely maintained, maybe to help maintain its own survival, a 1945 attitude toward Japan, even though nearly 70 years have elapsed.

  • -1

    Redcliff

    @ cabadaje

    "However I will say that the way they are acting now is the same way that they have acted at the lower national and regional level. If they can understand the big league rules, they would be well addressed to actually follow them"

    Yes in fact it is ridiculously easy to find that you are not only deluding yourself but with a built in myopic sight. If you have followed the rules of the big league as you have so stated then you should have no problem of noticing the similarity the US is playing as well.

  • -1

    Redcliff

    @ Cabadaje

    "Moral Standard and Conduct- We are talking about Global politics. Moral Standard are what are agreed upon by the major players"

    What you are saying is that a major player like US could sliced, changed and manipulate moral standard and conduct itself outside the Global norm where and when ever it suits US .like attack a sovereign country under pretense of WMD, carried out Rendition on other innocent national citizens without respecting their rights and illegal use of torture of prisoners of war and captives.

  • -2

    Takumi Saito

    @billyshears

    Because your fearful is so exaggerated. Like most of typical ignorant foreigner who dislike China(and any U.S rival) without any knowledge whatsoever.

    How China is anti-democratic by your "fact"? haven't you realize the improvement in China? in every aspect include democracy? China NEED a step by step progression toward democracy. That's the only way to manage a 1.3 billion population. Unlike USSR, China have no interest to expand their social, political and economic ideology.

  • 1

    cabadaje

    @Redcliff

    Yes in fact it is ridiculously easy to find that you are not only deluding yourself but with a built in myopic sight.

    Too bad you can't actually explain why, and have to resort to making simple personal attacks.

    If you have followed the rules of the big league as you have so stated then you should have no problem of noticing the similarity the US is playing as well.

    The devil is in the detail. Anyone can find similarities in anything. You can find similarities between a coffee cup and a donut. By definition, what differentiates things are the (unsurprisingly) differences, which I have already pointed out.

    What you are saying is that a major player like US could sliced, changed and manipulate moral standard and conduct itself outside the Global norm where and when ever it suits US

    Not even close to defining the complexity involved. You keep missing the major point, which is that the US, like all other global players, has to take in account its image with the other global players, and has to consider their reactions to its actions. This includes understanding the power balance and just how much power one has to leverage against all the others. Any country (again, the US isn't the only one on stage) taking action must be careful to only target those who it absolutely must target, it must also only use as much energy as strictly necessary, and must be willing to pay not just the cost of failure, but also the cost of success. No country, not the US, not any other, can freely attack anyone, anywhere, anyhow they choose, not if they expect to survive. Particularly not the players who are at the same level. That could only happen if all the other major players decided that would be okay, and being that this would put them in just as much danger as the one getting cut out, it will not happen. Again, at the global stage, it is not the decision of any one player exactly what is going to happen. The moment you show yourself as the unpredictable element, you lose the confidence of everyone else, which deeply bites into your credibility.

    Carrying it out on a country that isn't even close to being a global player, on the other hand, is relatively easy.

    like attack a sovereign country under pretense of WMD, carried out Rendition on other innocent national citizens without respecting their rights and illegal use of torture of prisoners of war and captives.

    You need to have a serious amount of credibility stored up to do something as asinine as the first. Bush cashed in a lot of it pulling that off, and left the Republican party looking so bad that we had a combo breaker the next presidency (indeed, it is possible the Republican party may never recover from it). Rendition, by definition, is entirely too dramatic to be of any use to the subtle and discrete tools needed at the global level. As for prisoners of war, there is, unfortunately, a lot of leeway given in regards to their treatment, regardless of who is holding them.

  • 1

    cabadaje

    China NEED a step by step progression toward democracy. That's the only way to manage a 1.3 billion population.

    Have to agree with that one. Behaviour isn't an easy thing to change, and it wouldn't be too hard to argue that China has been sincerely attempting to do that over the past 70 years.

    That said, China does seem to have some difficulties in determining just what other cultures consider socially appropriate. The easiest example I can think of is the Olympics, where China had one little girl singing the anthem, but had the actual singer, a different little girl, behind the curtains, because she had been judged the best singer, but not the cutest face to put in front of the cameras. From a production perspective, that is an entirely reasonable decision. To the other countries watching...well, something about it was just wrong. May the western world was still reeling from the Milli-Vanilli scandal that rocked our foundational beliefs in honesty. Maybe it was the implication that any little girl who could sing like that was not, by definition, cute. It was a bit of a faux pas, innocently done, and probably not even thought about twice at the time.

    So, we get the issue of the national educational system. Education is a pretty hot topic to many, many countries. Using education the promote hatred among children...it doesn't look good. At all. It isn't even a lie by omission, like accusing others of leaving out aspects of the war. I read a translation of a part of a lesson, and granted, it was an unverifiable translation from a third-hand source of unknown origin, but the part I read was an active bias, not just an omission, but a direct conclusion that left no doubt as to who were the aggressors and who were the victims. What makes it worse is that I didn't even need to verify it; in other words, regardless of whether it was a true and accurate translation, or even if it was completely and totally wrong, the general image of China in my mind (and, at the time, China wasn't really that interesting a topic in my mind) was that it was entirely possible. If someone accused the US or British government of actively promoting educational classes teaching hatred against foreign countries, one does not have to be a fan of the US or Britain to raise a skeptical eyebrow (again, regardless of whether it is true or not). In spite of all the specific instances of "bad" one can point to, it is difficult to consider that sort of behaviour being possible in either culture.

    Unlike USSR, China have no interest to expand their social, political and economic ideology.

    Not outside of China, no.

    The do seem quite interested, however, in expanding how much territory is actually considered Chinese.

  • -1

    Redcliff

    @ Cabadaje

    "too bad you can't actually explain why and have to resort to simple personal attack"

    Please don't get too sensitive to other disagreeing to your posting. I am surprised you could not notice the similarities of global politic conducted between between US and China. It's all in your own comment. That's the reason I said that you have myopic sight.

    "The devils in the detail. Anyone can find similarities in anything"

    So you do admit that China after all is also playing a global league game.

    " you keep on missing the point which is that US and the other major global players had to into account of its image with other players and has to consider their reaction to its action"

    So you do not think China is also considering other reactions to its action. China has been consistent in upholding its principle of not meddling in other sovereignty's domestic affairs and also continue upholding its principle of resolving disputes through negotiation more than the US and some major global players.

  • -1

    Redcliff

    @ Cabadaje

    " You need to have to have a serious amount of credibility stored up to do something asinine as the first. Bush cashed in a lot of it pulling that off..........As for prisoner of war, there is unfortunate, a lot of leeway given in regards to their treatment regardless of who is holding them."

    This comment really speak negatively of the image of the US which professed to uphold global human rights and democracy. This sort of illegal actions should not even be contemplated by the US , and to direct to your earlier posting -US and the other global players had to take into account of its image with other players and has to consider their actions to its action.

  • -2

    Redcliff

    @ Cabadaje

    " The do seem quite interested, however, in expanding how much territory is actually considered Chinese"

    Why don't you expand further and provide evidence of this claim of yours.

  • 2

    cabadaje

    @Redcliff

    Please don't get too sensitive to other disagreeing to your posting.

    I don't believe I posted anything about having personal delusions or myopic worldviews. As for the opinions I did post about, feel free to actually counter them without bringing in the ad homs.

    I am surprised you could not notice the similarities of global politic conducted between between US and China. It's all in your own comment.

    I'm surprised you think I didn't notice, considering you acknowledge that they figure so prominently in my rather long-winded posts. As I said in my previous post where I directly addressed your comment regarding similarities, it is not the similarities that make an amateur into a professional, but rather the differences. Anyone can act like a professional. Only a professional can due professional work.

    So you do admit that China after all is also playing a global league game.

    "Admit?" This isn't a Bugs Bunny cartoon. An intelligent discussion isn't about playing "Gotcha!" (You're thinking about political debates).

    China was acting like a global league player (and this is from someone who was thinking of China as the next possible war ten years ago). China's recent actions have come off as an honest-to-goodness surprise for many, many people, particularly in the field of global business (which is where I am currently working). Really, practically no one expected China to be a poser all this time. It wouldn't be too dissimilar from President Obama suddenly starting to outright trash-talk the Republicans and jive them (that's still a thing, right? Jive?) about how they are about to go politically extinct.

    So you do not think China is also considering other reactions to its action.

    Not well, not globally.

    China has been consistent in upholding its principle of not meddling in other sovereignty's domestic affairs...

    It's also been consistent in disagreeing with other countries about just who has ownership over a given piece of territory.

    ...and also continue upholding its principle of resolving disputes through negotiation more than the US and some major global players.

    I'm going to go ahead and disagree with that one. Resolving (non-economic) disputes through negotiation is not China's initial strike option. Not unless warnings regarding impending invasion are considered negotiation.

  • 1

    Sentiments

    If this matter really were were about arguments and Senkakus tiny land mass it could be fairly easy to resolve. But I think resources, power and face is what is at stake here. The statement above about a China that has not intruded on anyones sovereignty is somewhat idealistic. If the basis for arguing simply is to state that, what was yours is now mine because sometime in history I owned it, then it is simply non-sufficient. The clearest example is still Tibet, so far. Unfortunately China is not happy by only arguing the issues of islands. It seems to me there are very few arguments coming out of China and a lot more demands with military power behind. Consider south china sea where they guard occupied territory with gun-boats. Also consider the statement that Japan should do a reality check before they cause trouble they cant handle. I wonder what kind of friendly advice that could be from a nation that never expands outside its own borders?

  • 0

    T-Mack

    The United Nation's is not King Solomon full of wisdom, Share the Island's, or cut them right in half, and split the resouces...or go to war and blow them up...one way or the other Japan and China must stop this....because where all tired of reading about it...

  • 0

    Patrick Hagger

    They belong to Japan even according to the Chinese Historical documents. Other islands have used the island chain to claim their own independence from China.

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in National

View all

View all