Japan to replace ambassador to China amid island row: report

Politics Aug. 20, 2012 - 06:40AM JST ( 25 )

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

25 Comments

-7

YuriOtaniAug. 20, 2012 - 10:24AM JST

He needs to be retired and now.
-1

TokiyoAug. 20, 2012 - 10:29AM JST

@YuriOtani:

We cannot allow decades of past effort to be brought to nothing.”

Sounds reasonable enough.
1

GobshiteAug. 20, 2012 - 01:28PM JST

Sounds reasonable enough.

That's the problem, reasonable isn't something that the right wingers want.
2

Stranger_in_a_Strange_LandAug. 20, 2012 - 01:43PM JST

Sounds reasonable enough.

Which is why he's being replaced.
-1

AlternateUniverseAug. 20, 2012 - 02:08PM JST

He has been under pressure from both ruling and opposition parties to resign for misrepresenting Tokyo’s position that the islands,

How did he do that? What did he say?

The Japanese government position on that is a lie of many omissions anyway.

he warned that the Tokyo municipal government’s plan to buy some of the islands could spark an “extremely grave crisis” between the Asian powers.

And he was right! So is this the shoot the messenger game?
0

AlternateUniverseAug. 20, 2012 - 02:09PM JST

He needs to be retired and now.

But Yuri, why?
-1

Guru29Aug. 20, 2012 - 02:16PM JST

Japan's claim over those islands is clearly a violation of the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, Russia and Japan.

In the Potsdam Declaration, it was clearly stated that:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."

Since Japan agreed to Potsdam agreement and surrendered in WWII, so it also lost its sovereignty over those islands it colonized before WWII.
0

FarmboyAug. 20, 2012 - 02:18PM JST

The ambassador, Uichiro Niwa, sparked controversy in June when he warned that the Tokyo municipal government’s plan to buy some of the islands could spark an “extremely grave crisis” between the Asian powers.

Ummmm... so it's just grave, not extremely grave? I'm not clear on what was so controversial. Do they think that if he hadn't said what he did, the current situation would not have developed?
0

Guru29Aug. 20, 2012 - 02:20PM JST

In the Imperial Rescript of Surrender i.e. the speech delivered by Emperor Hirohito on 15 August 1945, the day of Japan's surrender. Emperor Hirohito informed the Japanese people that Japan would accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration in order to end WWII.

In the Imperial Rescript of Surrender, it was clearly stated that:

"To Our Good and loyal subjects:

After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in Our Empire today, We have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

We have ordered Our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration (i.e. the Potsdam Declaration)..."
-2

Guru29Aug. 20, 2012 - 02:23PM JST

Is Japan trying to reverse the outcome of WWII?
1

FarmboyAug. 20, 2012 - 02:25PM JST

Guru29, It has nothing to do with WWll. The Senkakus were Japanese long before then, and even if you don't think they are Japanese, you'd have to go back before the turn of the century for the appropriate research.
0

HikozaemonAug. 20, 2012 - 02:35PM JST

Niwa should have been replaced months ago when all this started - given the drama of the recent week, this all seems a bit late.

You can find online Niwa's background and previous views on Japan's relationship and future with China. It's amazing that they made this guy ambassador (although an excellent choice as someone willing to do and say anything to please China).
1

FarmboyAug. 20, 2012 - 02:41PM JST

PS: The US occupied, but didn't own, the islands for years after WWll, until 1972, but then the islands reverted to Japan under the same treaty that governed the return of Okinawa.
1

FarmboyAug. 20, 2012 - 02:51PM JST

Oh, I see. The problem was that the ambassador voiced his opinion about the issue when he should have only voiced the government's position. They're angry because his opinion was made public. Is that it?
0

smithinjapanAug. 20, 2012 - 03:03PM JST

Yeah, good idea, Japan! Replace a person with the interests of both nations are heart, trying to quell the tension, with some muppet who probably just spouts the party line.

Farmboy: "They're angry because his opinion was made public. Is that it?"

Exactly. More than angry I'd say embarrassed, though.
0

Guru29Aug. 20, 2012 - 03:58PM JST

Farmboy says: "Guru29, It has nothing to do with WWll."

A fact is a fact, boy.

Japan's claim over the islands of China, Korea and Russia does have everything to do with WWII. Even NYT says so.

By agreeing to the terms in Potsdam Agreement, the cornerstone of peace in east Asia, Japan does agree it will have no claims over any territory other than the main islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands to be jointly determined by US, UK, China and Russia.
0

Guru29Aug. 20, 2012 - 04:03PM JST

Farmboy says: "the islands reverted to Japan under the same treaty that governed the return of Okinawa."

The US had clarified that the return of Ryukyu islands had nothing to do with the sovereignty of the islands but merely the administration or management of the islands. The US government further clarified that since it did not own the sovereignty of Ryukyu in the first place, therefore it was impossible for the US government to have returned the sovereignty of the Ryukyu islands to Japan.

The US government also said it is neutral about the sovereignty of Dokdo and Diaoyu islands, so the return of sovereignty of the Diaoyu islands to Japan is merely a lie.
0

Tiger_In_The_HermitageAug. 20, 2012 - 05:40PM JST

I think it might be better to remove the right wing elements of governments on both sides. This old man has a life of experience in futhering the economic progress of both nations and this is how we treat him! No one here buys Chinese products sold in Japan? No one here works for Japanese corporate which invest in China? We all benefit from world trade.
1

FarmboyAug. 20, 2012 - 05:51PM JST

Guru29,

Read the peace treaty specifications concerning the islands here. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Civil_Administration_of_the_Ryukyu_Islands

This is off topic on this thread, however, and will no doubt be removed. Take it up on a more relevant thread. You are correct that Japan is administering the islands, but none of what you have mentioned makes the islands Chinese either. The issue is complex, and if you don't think so, you need to read more about it.
0

Ranger_Miffy2Aug. 20, 2012 - 08:17PM JST

The man seems to have been spot on. So he must go?
0

Guru29Aug. 20, 2012 - 10:42PM JST

Farmboy says: "Read the peace treaty specifications concerning the islands here."

Your free wiki page merely mentioned that Japan was engaged by the US government to administer the islands but did not mention anything regarding the sovereignty of those islands.

Most importantly, the wiki page does not contain anything in contrary to what we agreed earlier on that Japan's claim over those islands is a serious violation of the 5 party WWII peace treaty agreed between US, UK, China, Russia and Japan which states that:

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."
2

realistAug. 21, 2012 - 12:12AM JST

This man is a hero, a brave man who speaks his mind, who is intelligent and knows right from wrong. That is why he is not liked by politicians. In Japan, "the nail that sticks up will be hammered down" as they say. This is a prime example of that insane philosophy. I'm glad he had the courage to speak out. This whole debacle is about a couple of rocks jutting out of the ocean. Ishihara and all the other right wing nutcases are the ones who should be kicked out, not him.
1

OssanAmericaAug. 21, 2012 - 01:05AM JST

FarmboyAug. 20, 2012 - 02:51PM JST Oh, I see. The problem was that the ambassador voiced his opinion about the issue when he should have only voiced the >government's position. They're angry because his opinion was made public. Is that it?

Basically, yes. And any diplomat from any country would be sacked by his government for doing this.
0

FarmboyAug. 21, 2012 - 06:31AM JST

Correction: "the US could have dealt with any..."
0

FarmboyAug. 21, 2012 - 07:54AM JST

Guru29,

what we agreed earlier on that Japan's claim over those islands is a serious violation

We didn't agree on anything earlier. Please don't put words in my mouth. I read "such minor islands as we determine" to be such islands as they determine. I think if Japan didn't surrender properly, the US would have addressed it, as Japan was helpless. It was their call.

did not mention anything regarding the sovereignty of those islands

No, that was done through the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out

The intention, stated in the Cairo Declaration, was to deal with Japanese acquistions after 1914. You are taking the meaning out of that context.