Sunday May 27, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

China protests Japan's plan to name disputed islands

Politics Jan. 31, 2012 - 12:30PM JST ( 45 )

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

Order by Time Order by Popularity

45 Comments

-1

sunhawkJan. 31, 2012 - 06:56AM JST

china didn't care about these lifeless rocks until the discovery of oil and gas. easiest way to settle this is to look through Republic of China (1912–1949) records (if the commies didn't burn them all). see if the republic made any claims and actually exercised anything over these rocks. other wise they belong to japan simply because japan has actually done something with the islands.
-5

whiskeysourJan. 31, 2012 - 06:59AM JST

it belongs to China and the other parts to taiwan
-6

whiskeysourJan. 31, 2012 - 07:02AM JST

This reminds me of the times where England controlled Hong Kong and etc.

Sorry to say it but it doesn't belong to Japan.
0

KingBasilJan. 31, 2012 - 07:04AM JST

simply because japan has actually done something with the islands..

Like what and since when? Japan's claims are just as crappy and obviously about resources as China's. The only real claim that Japan has better than China is the fact that they control them militarily.

Heck, just the fact that Japan is going to name them only now is proof of how insignificant these rocks are all by themselves and why both countries ignored them until the discovery of gas and oil.
-4

KingBasilJan. 31, 2012 - 07:19AM JST

Sorry to say it but it doesn't belong to Japan.

It always seems like the Law of the Jungle speaks last on these matters. Law of the Jungle says they belong to Japan unfortunately. And I only say unfortunately because I despise the Law of the Jungle.
3

kakifryJan. 31, 2012 - 07:27AM JST

How about they "janken" over it?
-5

YuriOtaniJan. 31, 2012 - 07:32AM JST

whiskeysour, yea but we control them. If China wants them they will have to go to war with Japan and the United States. "do you feel lucky today?" The biggest problem China has is if they would do a military action and lose.
1

ebisenJan. 31, 2012 - 07:48AM JST

China actions sound like 1984 (if somebody doesn't know what 1984 stands for, Google it and read the book).

"it's not necessary to change the future, just change the past". I'm ready to bet anything that China will soon claim that those island were in fact inhabited by Chinese even before Japan existed as a country, AND produce a proof for this claim...
-1

NetNinjaJan. 31, 2012 - 08:22AM JST

Since January, four Japanese politicians have visited the islands, sparking Beijing’s ire.

Wasting taxpayers money going out there. They need to make more visits to disaster hit areas.
1

TahoochiJan. 31, 2012 - 08:22AM JST

@kakifry: Thanks for the giggle. I agree with the 'janken'.
3

CrazyJoeJan. 31, 2012 - 08:35AM JST

This is none of their (China's) business.
0

spudmanJan. 31, 2012 - 08:49AM JST

Japan later released the captain, who it maintained had intentionally rammed two Japanese coast guard vessels

Japan has already buckled to pressure from it's adversary, no way is this issue going away and with China on the rise and competing with Japan for resources this could get messy. Cool heads are needed but Japan and China can't keep calm, their history is still bitter and full of mistrust.
1

MolenirJan. 31, 2012 - 08:49AM JST

“The Diaoyu Islands and adjacent islets have always been part of Chinese territory, and China exercises its sovereignty over them,” foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said in a statement.

They forgot to add. Its always been part of Chinese territory, ever since 1970 when it was discovered there might be oil and gas there,. Much the same way Taiwan, Vietnam, and the Philippines belong to China
3

MaboDofuIsSpicyJan. 31, 2012 - 09:05AM JST

Use them for target practice.
0

ElvensilvanJan. 31, 2012 - 09:09AM JST

How about they "janken" over it?

I would like to agree ... but it makes me wonder ... would the Japanese and Chinese rules on janken be the same?

Funny thing about the article is the fact that Japan uses it's coast guard to patrol the islands, and they're being countered by fishermen.

Protests and claims are all good ways of saying "no" in my book ... but ramming is just one step away from outright violence.
-2

CletusJan. 31, 2012 - 09:13AM JST

So Japan claims these islands (how many countries recognise and support this claim? very few if any), and Japan deliberately provokes the other nations that claim these islands as well by declaring that they will name them. Its funny to see the pro Japan crowd using arguments like "but we control them" yet when the matter of the Northern territories are mentioned these same people cry foul and even though using their own argument "Russia controls that territory" they still cry foul. They also use a similar argument of Australia's antarctic claim "but only a handful of countries recognise it so its not legitimate" yet again they are steadfast that despite no-one recognising their claim to these islands that they belong to Japan.

I guess they cant see the irony in their own arguments.
3

ratpackJan. 31, 2012 - 09:23AM JST

I'm guessing that the Chinese are going to test drive their new aircraft carrier near those waters in the next few weeks.
0

choiwaruoyajiJan. 31, 2012 - 09:26AM JST

How about they "janken" over it?

I would like to agree ... but it makes me wonder ... would the Japanese and Chinese rules on janken be the same?

Good points. Unless the contest were played under the rules of the IRPSA it would be invalid.
0

gelendestrasseJan. 31, 2012 - 09:33AM JST

They are probably as much a part of China as Tibet is....
3

paulinusaJan. 31, 2012 - 09:40AM JST

China is being silly about the naming of the islands. And Japan might be able to claim them by some historical standards. But I will say that these islands are some 200 nautical miles(370 km.) southwest of Okinawa, which makes them very, very far from Kyushu.
0

gaijintravellerJan. 31, 2012 - 10:06AM JST

Who were the politicians and which party did they belong to?
0

WurthingtonJan. 31, 2012 - 10:29AM JST

I think this will go to international arbitration and ultimately any energy / mineral resources will be divided up evenly.
0

DogJan. 31, 2012 - 10:35AM JST

WurthingtonJan. I think this will go to international arbitration and ultimately any energy / mineral resources will be divided up evenly.

It won't because Japan doesn't want it to.

Even its own High Court (Tokyo 1942) ruled that the Senkakus did not fall under Okinawan jurisdiction (Ishigaki v Taiwan local govt dispute) but fell under the jurisdiction of the Taiwanese (then occupied by Japan) local government.
1

paulinusaJan. 31, 2012 - 10:37AM JST

"I think this will go to international arbitration and ultimately any energy / mineral resources will be divided up evenly."

Wurthington: You would think that would be the rational outcome. But these island disputes are ruled by politics and nationalism on all sides, so don't hold your breath for logic to prevail.
0

WurthingtonJan. 31, 2012 - 10:54AM JST

Well then lets hope renewable energy gets a lot cheaper to produce before this gets out of hand.
1

7solace9Jan. 31, 2012 - 10:55AM JST

If a win-win solution cannot be found, then it is probably best if all parties just let those islands sit. Or maybe Japan and China would agree to give them to little Taiwan.
0

BurakuminDesJan. 31, 2012 - 11:18AM JST

they belong to japan simply because japan has actually done something with the islands.

Enjoy your nation's pile of rocks, Sunhawk. I'm sure they will rescue Japan from the major crises she faces right now, and your leaders can rejoice.
-4

sunhawkJan. 31, 2012 - 11:20AM JST

give the islands to new zealand and then let new zealand charge countries exorbitant fees to lease a license for economic activity in the area.

japan's claim to the islands is just a legit as anyone else.
-2

Sarcasm321Jan. 31, 2012 - 12:01PM JST

Follow the British approach to the Falklands issue...
2

deepstar6Jan. 31, 2012 - 12:09PM JST

OK, so Japan is naming uninhabited islands. Whats next? Building Fukushima mess disposal grounds?
3

Flippy JagermeisterJan. 31, 2012 - 01:17PM JST

They want to name them now? Then they are not Japanese. Kinda late isnt? LOL
0

kukuchaiJan. 31, 2012 - 01:49PM JST

divided into half, fair and square, no need to fight.
-3

Elbuda MexicanoJan. 31, 2012 - 01:58PM JST

The whole world should protest China invading TIBET!!
-2

YongYangJan. 31, 2012 - 02:00PM JST

Bring back Mao.
-1

sunhawkJan. 31, 2012 - 02:06PM JST

china would claim vietnam on the basis it was a vassal state during the qing dynasty, if they could get away with it.
4

KingBasilJan. 31, 2012 - 07:22PM JST

Its rather telling that China gets a whole lot ot flak for its land claims, but the pro-Japan side does not want to talk about the details of Japan's claim to these islands at all. In other words, they are desperate to change the subject with a "Hey! Lookee over there!". They sure don't want to talk about Liancourt Rocks or the Kurils. The hypocrisy might kill us all...through laughter!
-3

sunhawkJan. 31, 2012 - 08:19PM JST

Japan signed this treaty with The Russian Empire back during the Meiji Restoration period. Most of the time with out even having to shoot the russians.
-2

ThonTaddeoJan. 31, 2012 - 09:26PM JST

But I will say that these islands are some 200 nautical miles(370 km.) southwest of Okinawa, which makes them very, very far from Kyushu.

Paul, they're far from Kyushu, and far from the main island of Okinawa, but very close to -- and almost due north of -- Ishigaki and the other Yaeyama islands. They're closer to Ishigaki than any other place, including Taiwan.

Or maybe Japan and China would agree to give them to little Taiwan.

And when big mainland China gobbles up little Taiwan?

Sorry; we won't fall for that gambit.
2

justiceallFeb. 01, 2012 - 05:21AM JST

I felt sad that Japan does this name thing which can only cause conflicts, if they are not quite belong to you how could you do that, also even China neglets it or e.g. John does nothing to his second home doesnot mean I can go to John's second home and claim it my home.. I wish they think Peace first and put more help to the desaster area first \i wish all peace to resolve...
-1

nigelboyFeb. 01, 2012 - 05:30AM JST

Its rather telling that China gets a whole lot ot flak for its land claims, but the pro-Japan side does not want to talk about the details of Japan's claim to these islands at all. In other words, they are desperate to change the subject with a "Hey! Lookee over there!". They sure don't want to talk about Liancourt Rocks or the Kurils. The hypocrisy might kill us all...through laughter!

Incorporated in Jan of 1895. Not a single complaint from neighbors until 1971. Anything else you want to whine?
-1

nigelboyFeb. 01, 2012 - 05:32AM JST

So Japan claims these islands (how many countries recognise and support this claim? very few if any), and Japan deliberately provokes the other nations that claim these islands as well by declaring that they will name them.

Signatories to Treaty of Peace with Japan to start. Who other than China officially supports China's claim?
2

CletusFeb. 01, 2012 - 07:41AM JST

nigelboy

"So Japan claims these islands (how many countries recognise and support this claim? very few if any), and Japan deliberately provokes the other nations that claim these islands as well by declaring that they will name them." Signatories to Treaty of Peace with Japan to start. Who other than China officially supports China's claim?

Actually you are wrong there nigelboy, the countries that signed the peace treaty with Japan actually signed to say that the Senkaku islands would be taken off Japan and administered by the US. "Article 3 of the treaty formally put the Bonin Islands and the Ryukyu Islands, which included Okinawa and the Amami, Miyako and Yaeyama Islands groups, under U.S. trusteeship." Given that the Senkaku group where lumped in by the US as part of the Ryukyu Islands when they where handed back to Japan in the 1970's then the signatories of the peace treaty actually do not support the claim just by signing the treaty. In fact apart from the US (and they have said in the past they support Japan however this is not a determination on ownership) non of the other signatories actually support Japans claim to the islands as it was a case of the US giving away something it had no rights to. Oh and as for your assertion about China's claim starting in 1971 you are in fact correct. It started when and because the US "gave" the islands to Japan and this is when Japan and Taiwan raised their objections.
0

KingBasilFeb. 01, 2012 - 08:00PM JST

nigelboyFeb. 01, 2012 - 05:30AM JST

Incorporated in Jan of 1895. Not a single complaint from neighbors until 1971

You seem to be a Japanese of the old mold. One who does not realize that all those bullets flying your way are in fact, a form of complaint. You see, when Japan was at war with China in 1885, the same year you speak of, this war called the first Sino-Japanese war, all the bullets whizzing past Japanese ears were a complaint for the Japanese to stay away. I guess the message was lost in translation? The result of that war was the Treaty of Shimonoseki, in which Japan gained the colony of Taiwan, of which even the Japanese of the time recognized these rocks and the Diaoyu islands as being part of. They all had Chinese names.

Yet, even more bullets came and the Japanese still did not understand that they were not wanted. Despite the treaty, Taiwan (and again the islands and rocks in question) declared independence, and the Japanese responded with the invasion of Taiwan (more military force). But, undeterred by bullets, the Japanese swore they were invited, just as you swear now that nobody complained.

You probably wonder why the Japanese have a reputation for being sneaky.

Mind you, I do not dispute Japan's claim. They have military hegemony and that is what is counts. But you trying to pretty it up to look like something innocent is a sick and twisted exercise. Its disgusting. Its shameful. And worse, its not even necessary to blow that smoke up our backsides.
-3

nigelboyFeb. 01, 2012 - 11:43PM JST

Cletus

We went over this. 48 nations agreed to put some of the territories under trusteeship where U.S. was the sole administrator. To make it easier for you, the 48 nations agreed to let the U.S. do whatever in regard to these territories. The said territories were subsequently returned via Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands which refers to the Article 3 of the Peace Treaty. Hence, under Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties on interpretation of treaties, the 48 nations who are signatories to the Treaty accepted the return of the territories to Japan.

Oh and as for your assertion about China's claim starting in 1971 you are in fact correct. It started when and because the US "gave" the islands to Japan and this is when Japan and Taiwan raised their objections

Thanks for agreeing to the fact that China kept silent for 86 years to start. Secondly, then please explain to me that in 1953, China's newspaper "Peoples Daily", they indicated the said territories as "Senkaku" and indicated as part of the Ryukyu islets? Also explain to me that in 1958, their map issued in Beijing also labeled it as "Senkaku" and indicated as Japanese territory?
-1

nigelboyFeb. 01, 2012 - 11:54PM JST

You see, when Japan was at war with China in 1885, the same year you speak of, this war called the first Sino-Japanese war

False. First Sino-Japanese war started in 1894. In 1885, nine years prior, Tatsushiro Koga had already established a small fishing port and a dried bonito plant there with the approval from the Japanese government.