China says U.S. culpable in Japan island dispute

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

  • -3

    Philip Grow

    The three countries should just put together a cost sharing plan. Every 3 months, one country can have ownership and use the islands.

  • 1

    semperfi

    China is testing USA's resolve & commitment to it treaty alliance with Japan. . . . .. Given enough push from intransigent unrelenting China, will USA flounder ??????

  • 7

    JoeBigs

    Historical fact, the PRC did not give one rat dropping about the islands until natural resources were discovered.

    Right after those resources were found the PRC draped the island in their nationalist rewritten history and made them seem to have been a lost hero of the revolution.

    Hell, they made the islands seem as if Mao himself was interned there.

    Funny how they can so easily fool there own people into believing their bunked history tales.

  • 0

    paulinusa

    "While Beijing has not asked for outside mediation, its references to the U.S. appear to be an attempt to prompt Washington to use its influence to soften the stance of Japan,..."

    Maybe, maybe not. You'll never figure out what the Chinese statements are intended to convey. It could be meant more for the Chinese domestic population than foreign governments.

  • -13

    FPSRussia

    China has every right to make this statement. We cannot forget who helped build America in favor of those who bombed it.

    Corporate America does not want to see war in this region to due to it's capitalistic interests. China and Japan are marketplaces.

    America can thrive and be successful without Japan any day. Our best business alliances remain with China. Let us not forget who holds the largest amount of U.S debt.

    As an American, I can totally understand China's response. Are you really going to betray us to side with those who bombed your country? Are you really going to forget about those brave American's who depended on making it to Chinese soil during WWII. The Chinese were there for us.

    Obama's administration needs to clamp down on Japan's politicians. China wants us to squeeze them and we should.

    China is right.

  • -8

    michikokada

    I suddenly feel like having a pizza et watch the show... Chine owns them, Japan runs them, the USA either brokers a deal or shut up, simple and easy. Mr Hong's last comment is very interesting since Chinese people have never/ can never / should never trust the US, what's the point?!

  • 6

    House Atreides

    As an American, I can totally understand China's response. Are you really going to betray us to side with those who bombed your country? Are you really going to forget about those brave American's who depended on making it to Chinese soil during WWII. The Chinese were there for us.

    Rubbish. The Communist Chinese were never there for us. They were certainly not there for us in 1950 when they invaded Korea and with their North Korean allies left close to 40,000 U.S. soldiers dead and another 92,000 plus wounded. China is a threat not only to its neighbors but to the United States and its interests in Asia. And those interests include Japan. The United States entered the Korean War to prevent Korea from becoming "a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan."

    One facet of the changing attitude toward Korea and whether to get involved was Japan. Especially after the fall of China to the Communists, "...Japan itself increasingly appeared as the major East Asian prize to be protected".

    The United States protected its interest in Asia in 1950 and it will continue to do so. The Chinese have miscalculated before about U.S. resolve. In 1999 they had their embassy destroyed by five U.S. JDAMs when they made the mistake of assuming the U.S. wouldn't take action against China.

  • 2

    warispeace

    The US doesn't like it when any other bully challenges them in their sandboxes around the world.

  • 0

    Debucho

    @ FPSRussia, you could not be more wrong. Stop living in the past. WWII has been over for half a decade. Much has changed since then.

    Given the choice to trust Japan or China? Hmmm let's see? I don't remember Japan running over its own people with tanks in peaceful protests, nor do I see Japan banning internet sites from its people to censor information. Trusting ANYONE over China is a no-brainer.

    China has never owned the islands. The US gave them back to Japan with Okinawa in the 70s.

    Regarding capitalism, what is wrong with wanting peace for the sake of good economics? The only ones who complain about capitalism are poor people.

  • 3

    viking68

    FPSRussia, a creditor doesn't make you a business partner. Both parties came together with completely opposite goals, China has a bunch of dollars it doesn't spend, America wants the dollars to support their overspending.

    The partnership during war was between mercenaries fighting in China against the Japanese. The U.S. also stopped supplying steel to the Japanese when it invaded China. It was done out of basic decency and not out of friendship. Decency is a trait in short supply and rarely a trait associated with China's actions.

    In fact, I don't believe your assertion that you are an American. I know of nobody in America who would make the statements you made. In fact, most American's view China as a bad actor in the world community. It is a perception China has only reinforced by its policies and actions.

    Who are you referring to as having built America? The Chinese immigrants? So, does China own every Chinese person who flees China for a better life? That logic would make sense only in China.

    When "America was built", China still had a vast majority of their population (800 million of people during Kissinger's time as Sec. of State) living as hunter gatherers. That statistic is always unbeliveable to think so many people were and still are living by foraging for food in the wilderness. China didn't have the power to build their own nation, let alone America.

  • 2

    Eppee

    @FPSRussia, "Our best business alliances remain with China. Let us not forget who holds the largest amount of U.S debt." Japan holds a nice share too ... http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

  • 0

    BradG91

    When china tried to take holdings from india and vietnam they fought back and the chinese went back home with tail between their legs. The chinese didn't build America, the west built china by investing in it. The chinese immigrants who came here were trying for a better life just like all immigrants to the US do. Latin Americans,Irish,Italians,African Americans and the hard working blue collar American all helped build America not just the chinese immigrants.

  • 0

    BradG91

    Forgot to add to my previous comment that the chinese government did not build America china was still years behind and some parts still today are a generation behind

  • 0

    Psyops

    "He urged U.S. officials to “responsibly treat the Diaoyu issue, watch their words and deeds, maintain regional stability and Sino-U.S. relations, so that the Chinese people can trust them.”

    Ummm no, we dont need your trust, no need to trust thieves and backstabbers. Oh and its not the Daiyu Issue, they are called Snekaku and owned by Japan so stop trying to steal them.

  • 0

    Psyops

    Ummm no, we dont need your trust, no need to trust the Chinese thieves and backstabbers. Oh and its not the Daiyu Issue, they are called Snekaku and owned by Japan so stop trying to steal them.

  • -1

    DeDeMouse

    Western superiority & hegemony clearly still wafted to this century. Japan lose its war, and became U.S puppet. China shattered by western imperialist, and turned into Communist. There's no real balance between east and west. At this point, Asian countries has no real stance without depend to U.S in every aspect. Sigh~

  • 0

    highball7

    I think we need to take this very seriously.

    China is basically telling the US to keep quiet and let the corpses die. I rarely see the Chinese publicly reprimand the US in this accusatory way. It almost feels like they know the US position on this and they're reminding the US to stay out of it if it doesn't want to get burnt.

    I feel that from everything I've heard from the US side, all the statements made are lip services. There hasn't been an ounce of solid support saying Japan is the rightful owners of the islands and they have absolute sovereignty over them. The words that were said by the US are administering and control. Neither had any significance in rightful ownership and recognition of sovereignty.

    That means the US is at the very least not in support of Japan owning these islands which by default means that the ownership and sovereignty of these islands are either unknown or disputed. That's China's position.

    So at the very least, we can see that US is not taking side on this. Because if you pay attention to what Japan and China is saying, they are talking about completely different things. China is saying these islands are disputed and both sides should return to some unofficial notion that they would leave this issue alone under further notice. Japan is saying we own this, not we administer this, its we have rightful ownership and sovereignty over these islands and China need to recognize.

    In another word, there can never be an accord if Japan doesn't lower its stance because most certainly the Chinese can't get any higher or lower on its stance. And US had never supported Japan or China concerning the islands ownership and sovereignty. So at the end of the day, its really up to Japan to lower its stance to achieve any type of accord or peace.

  • 0

    viking68

    House Atreides, In 1999 they had their embassy destroyed by five U.S. JDAMs when they made the mistake of assuming the U.S. wouldn't take action against China.

    I would like to agree with you on this last point, but as I recall, the bombing was called a "targeting mistake". They hit the target, no mistake in that, but I understand it was the wrong target.

    Still, at the time it was questioned whether the U.S. had bombed China's Iraqi embassy as retribution for China vetoing UN action and whether the U.S. could make such a mistake.

    Maybe it was retribution, but I don't think the U.S. would knowingly bomb a third country's embassy.

  • 0

    DeDeMouse

    This all started by Ishihara. Not China, Japan and U.S.

  • -3

    FPSRussia

    Well, you guys need to go back to Hillary Clintons remarks. Obviously she needs her head examined again. Thank goodness she'll be out of job soon. You never never walk into a beef between two dogs. Let them fight it out.

  • 0

    bruinfan

    The rest of the world really needs to unify against China to keep them in their place. I like many things about China, but we don't need another world bully.

  • 0

    House Atreides

    I would like to agree with you on this last point, but as I recall, the bombing was called a "targeting mistake". They hit the target, no mistake in that, but I understand it was the wrong target.

    It was the right target. The U.S. deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade after discovering it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications. It's all in Jiang Zemin's unpublished memoir.

    It said Jiang regretted allowing the Serbs sanctuary inside China's diplomatic mission and believed it was a serious political mistake. The memoir is said to tell how a furious Chinese government was forced to mute its protests after the Americans privately presented evidence of Serbian electronic communications from within the embassy.

    The Chinese were assisting the Serbs in exchange for parts from the F-117 that had been shot down. The Chinese do indeed miscalculate from time to time. That is what makes the current situation all the more dangerous. If they believe the U.S. won't come to Japan's aid and use force and find out otherwise, there are going to be a lot more than five JDAMs falling on them this time.

  • 0

    highball7

    Bruinfan,

    The problem is everybody else in the rest of the world want to get on China's good side. Look at the EU. Look at Asean. Look at South America. The Middle East and most certainly the African.

    Outside of a few hardcore USA alliances, the rest of the world is leaning toward China these days if you haven't noticed.

    And why should anyone keep China in is place? They most certainly didn't start this mess. Ishihara did. And Noda fell in the trap and expanded on it. Now you got Abe who took advantaged of the political environment and he can't back down from it. If you look again in China's official position, it wants bilateral talk to state that these islands are disputed islands and they should be shelved for future discussions. They didn't say, we own this, you back down.

    For a pacifist Japan, the aggressor and game changer was started by Japan. There is no way around it. If Ishihara did not push this, things will cool off a lot. Remember how Japan arrested a boat captain and all hell broke loose? Well, Japan nationalize the island and things cooled off even though Japan arrested and exerted its domestic legal action against him. That means that wasn't the bottom line. So what I think is Japan want to test the bottom line because they could've just fined him and send him on a plane home instead of trialing him. That was a calculated move by Japan. It want a bottom line.

    Ishihara's action just provided it. And it just woke the giant in the worst possible way.

    To your contrary, I don't like many things about China. The foremost are rule of law and environmental regulations. I don't like its human rights and corruption. But I do like its culture, food, and people.

  • 1

    House Atreides

    They most certainly didn't start this mess. Ishihara did. And Noda fell in the trap and expanded on it. Now you got Abe who took advantaged of the political environment and he can't back down from it.

    China most certainly started it when they changed their stance on the Senkaku islands in 1971 with the discovery of natural resources in the area. Back in 1950 the Chinese maintained that:

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

    The Senkaku islands are a part of the Yaeyama islands. China just needs to reaffirm their original stance.

    If you look again in China's official position, it wants bilateral talk to state that these islands are disputed islands and they should be shelved for future discussions. They didn't say, we own this, you back down.

    The Chinese only want to enter into discussions because they don't have control of the islands. Go back and look at what happened with the Paracel Islands in 1974. The Chinese never offered to share them or negotiate a deal with the Vietnamese. Chinese forces simply occupied the islands without notifying Vietnam. In fact, because the Vietnamese didn't stop Chinese aggression at the Paracels, the Chinese continued their aggression against Vietnam. This ultimately lead to the invasion of Vietnam in 1979. Giving in to Chinese aggression just emboldens them. Give an inch to the Chinese and they'll try to take a mile.

  • 0

    Redcliff

    @ House Atreides

    " Go back and look at what happened with the Paracel Islands in 1974. The Chinese never offer to share them or negotiate a deal......."

    My reading of the historical facts and the Cairo Declaration , Potsdam Proclamation and the Japan Surrender Instrument was that Japan had returned the Paracel Islands to China, the rightful owner, after the WWII.I believe China in this instance has the legal sovereignty over them. You might like to confirm this through the reading of those Agreements I just mentioned.

  • 0

    Redcliff

    Sound like there are many unanswered question in this dispute'

    Japan claimed Senkaku is theirs based on their understanding of the history and events.

    China (and Taiwan) claimed that the Diaoyu Islands belong to them also based on their understanding of the history and events.

    US said that it only given Japan the Administrative rights over Diaoyu Islands/Senkaku but did not confirmed that the sovereignty was given.

    If the sovereignty is clear cut then this dispute will not arise. So may be the first question is to asked the USA as to whether it has any legal rights to do what it did and laid down its reason for this confused decision.

    More significantly China and Japan should sit down to resolve this dispute. It might be better for the two Countries to Jointly fund and develop the resources for the benefit of their citizens.

  • 3

    House Atreides

    My reading of the historical facts and the Cairo Declaration , Potsdam Proclamation and the Japan Surrender Instrument was that Japan had returned the Paracel Islands to China, the rightful owner, after the WWII.

    Japan renounced its claim to the Paracels but that doesn't automatically make them Chinese territory. Vietnam was still a colony of France when Japan renounced its claim and therefore couldn't assert its own claim. Vietnam is now claiming that there is a dispute as to the ownership of the Paracels. The Chinese refuse to discuss the matter. Japan is refusing to discuss the Senkaku matter because that is what China would do if it was in Japan's position.

  • 0

    cramp

    The rest of the world really needs to unify against China to keep them in their place. I like many things about China, >but we don't need another world bully.

    and you're too myopic to see that you just recommended the entire world 'unify'..meaning gang up against china...which by definition is bullying...lets be bullies to quell a bully, nice

  • 0

    michikokada

    Good question: whether the US has the right to give Japan the administrative rights over the Senkaku/Diaoyu?

  • 0

    White_Shinobi

    Man, just put an unbelievably high price on the islands... If bought... The ecomony could be balanced and rise to the 2nd in the world again ;)

  • 0

    White_Shinobi

    Aaaand, the usa wouldnt be so calm if russia came in like "yo, we want alaska back"

  • 0

    Peter Payne

    It was the policy of the U.S. government and the Allies that both Dokdo/Takeshima and the Senkakus were part of Japan. It occupied/administered them along with Okinawa and returned them to Japan along with Okinawa. There is a frigging letter written by Douglas MacArthur making his views on Dokdo/Takeshima, at least, very clear. The Korean/Chinese whining about not being signatories on the Treaty of San Francisco is laughable.

    Trouble is, imagine what would happen if the threat of riots in Apple factories ever rose. Damn, I hope this crap doesn't make the stock fall.

  • 2

    Fadamor

    Japan claimed them in 1895. What was China's response THEN? (sound of crickets chirping) China didn't care one bit about a few rocks not large enough to support a house (no fresh water). Of course back then China wasn't worried about fossil fuels and fishing areas like they are now that they've fished-out their local areas. I'm sorry China, you gave up the claim back in 1895 when you let Japan take it. Now, you're right. If it comes to bullets over that group of rocks, the U.S. is going to have to help defend them. But if it DOES come to bullets, it is solely China's fault. China is the one pushing the issue and intentionally antagonizing the country currently administering the islands. China can try and shift the blame all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that CHINA is the one intruding, not Japan.

  • -1

    highball7

    House,

    There is no signing of whether China or Japan signed a treaty that gave the islands to either side. The only thing that both sides hinges on are a bunch of historic maps, letters, and the words by the the USA.

    Problem is China and Taiwan is claiming that they never agreed to or signed anything ceding these islands to Japan. That's their stance. I tend to agree with that since there hasn't been any formal treaties or agreement that gave these particular islands away from China to Japan.

    So the main argument is, did China give them away per Japan? On the flip side, no one is arguing that at one point in time in the 20th century, Japan did take those islands from China. That's China and Taiwan's stance that Japan did in fact claimed them away. This position wasn't denied by the Japanese either.

    So the interpretation all lies in whether USA had the legitimacy or power to draw a line and give away territories without accord. You mentioned 1971, from what I can research on, the Chinese protested about the taking of the islands back ins the 40s and 50s. The winners of the war did not invite any Chinese to the signing of any of these agreements and the Chinese never agreed to the type of secession.

    Whether or not natural resources were discovered, which is still a myth because there is no scientific fact suggesting there are gas and oil around these islands, are irrelevant.

    And if the ownership and sovereignty is still debatable, and there is an understanding that the leaders of both countries would shelve this for a latter time, then if someone unilaterally re-ignite the fire, that makes him a fire-starter. And it is in my opinion that Ishihara is that fire-starter because he changed the status quo. Before his actions, Japan still had control over these islands and could act on legal arrest of trespassers. When Ishihara started the legal action of purchasing these islands, all hell broke loose. Now, Japan law enforcement can only sit and watch. If you don't think that's a change of status quo, you are gravely mistaken.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Highball7

    You are way off. The issue here is whether or not China had exercised effective control of the islands prior to Japan's incorporation in 1895. The answer is negative.

  • 3

    House Atreides

    So the main argument is, did China give them away per Japan? On the flip side, no one is arguing that at one point in time in the 20th century, Japan did take those islands from China.

    The main issue is why China shifted from its original position in 1950 when it stated that the Senkaku Islands were a part of the Yaeyama Islands. Japan didn't take the Senkaku Islands away from China because China never had them to begin with. China never had effective control of the islands. There were no Chinese structures on the islands or Chinese living on them. The first structures on the islands were built by the Japanese. The first domesticated animals on the island were brought over by the Japanese. The first detailed maps of the islands were printed by the Japanese. The Chinese didn't even have detailed maps of the islands until 2012. The first people in the area were Okinanwan. Even the moles living on the island are more closely related to moles living in Okinawa than anything on China's mainland. The Senkaku islands are a part of the Yaeyama islands and a part of Okinawa.

  • 0

    Redcliff

    @ House Atreides

    "Japan renounced its claim on the paracel but that doesn't automatically make them China Territories. Vietnam is still a colony of France when Jana renounced...."

    Even though Vietnam was then a colony of France, China ownership of the islands were confirmed and sighted by various publishings and of number of countries. They recorded the the condition of the Paracel Island known as Nansha Island in China and its inhabitants.

    The following:

    In France - In the Le Monde Colonial illustrated in Sept 1933 issue pointing out Chinese inhabitants on the Nansha Island when the French gunboat name Malicieuse was surveying the Nanwei of the Nansha Island in 1030. The Atlas International Larousse published in 1965 in France marked Nansha, Xisha and Dongsha Islands as China territories. Japan 1966 and also 1972 all published China's territories include the Mainland, Hainan Island, Taiwan and Penghus, Nansha, Xisha, Donsha Islands in the South China Sea. The USA- Columbia Lippinott World Toponynic Dictionary published in US states that Nansha Islands(paracel Island) on the SC Sea are part of the Guangdong Province of China. World Administrative Division Encyclopaedia published in 1971 says that Nansha, Dongsha, Xisha are China Territories.

    If all these publishing and countries claimed that Paracel Islands are part of China Territories and further more Chinese inhabitants have been living in these Islands since around 200 BC and the first Chinese settlement was by Chinese monks in the 220BC. They built the first monastery in Nansha Island(Paracel Island). The continuation of Chinese settlement were also noted right through the various Chinese Dynasties that was the Tang, the Song the Yuan and until Japan occupied Paracel Islands( Nansha Islands) during WWII.

    Therefore my earlier point that Japan has returned the Paracel( Nansha Island) to China as the rightful owner is being supported by all these evidence.

  • 0

    Redcliff

    @ House Atreides

    Both Countries China and Japan could put forward historical evidence and sighting their understanding of the Treaties and Agreements after the WWII. It would serve no purpose if both countries are not stepping back a step to first have the highly charged tension reduced. Discussions and negotiation can only proceed under a more calm environment.

    You have brought up a point on connection to Okinawa but I also have read about information on the Continental Shelf and its prolongation under the Law of the Seas. It seems that there is a 2700 miles Okinawa Trough separating the Okinawa and the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. By this one would have to refer to the UNCLOS and EEZ and the Continental Shelf. Based on these as it stood the Senkaku/Diaoyu Island appears to be in favour of China asthe islands are within the Continental Shelf and this Continental Shelf prolongation reaches the Okinawa Trough . By legal indication this Trough is the dividing line of the territories of individual Country.

    So as I have said the best scenario is to have both Countries sit down and resolve this dispute calmly and with mutual respect.

  • 0

    Redcliff

    Sorry just realized that I have made a couple of typing mistakes. The years should read 200ADand 220AD instead of BC of my reply to House Atreides

    " ...Chinese inhabitants have been living in these Islands since around 200BC and the first Chinese settlement was by Chinese monks in the 220 BC....."

    The years should read 200 AD and 220 AD.

  • -1

    Tiger_In_The_Hermitage

    The Obama Regime.... I know from history but this was when America was only inhabited by Red Indians, that China and Japan shared lots of cultural exchange which benefited both countries.

  • 0

    miwiya

    i'm sorry, but with china's track record it's really asking too much to trust them. they've already hijacked the planned shared natural gas development by moving ahead without japan. fact is they have more people than they can possibly support. they need food and resources and the seem to feel the only way to resolve that is to appropriate what they can from japan, vietnam, and the philippines. burning japanese cars and businesses does little to show a willingness to trust them, nor does their history of intimidation tactics and retoric.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • 営業/建設機械  

    営業/建設機械  
    MB Japan 株式会社、埼玉県
    給与:給与要相談 歩合制 給与参考例・・・2013年度営業職月給平均 45万円  
  • TOEICインストラクター

    TOEICインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:時給 3,000円 相談可
  • TOEFL・IELTSインストラクター

    TOEFL・IELTSインストラクター
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:時給 3,500円 相談可
  • 海外留学担当者

    海外留学担当者
    Berkeley House Language Center / バークレーハウス語学センター、東京都
    給与:月給 25万円 ~ 35万円 相談可
  • PR and Communication Specialist

    PR and Communication Specialist
    Italian Chamber of Commerce in Japan、東京都
    給与:給与についての記載なし

More in Politics

View all

View all