Japan to send envoy to China to discuss territorial dispute, N Korea

So we will see just how much the Politburo is really interested in peace, good relations and continued trade. Or just how much the PLA are now in control..

It's not going to be a proxy war. Japan needs to show the world that it can stand on its own two feet by defeating China single-handedly. That's not the definition of a proxy war.

In fact, we do not intend that any of mainland China will be disturbed in the least, unless the islands of Japan are compromised themselves. This is intended to be simply the destruction of the PLA Navy in the East China Sea and the PLA Air Force in the same arena. In essence, it is our intention to castrate the PRC of its military capabilities. Should nuclear weapons come into play, China will be annihilated to the tune of 500 Hiroshimas.

Yes, we're using the Senkakus as the pretext to start this war. And we cannot let China back down and simply renounce its claims to the islands. We will not let this happen. China must continue to escalate its response to Japanese escalation. This we ordain: The Chinese Navy and Air Force must be destroyed.

hmmmm i rarely see China's intrusion being rare today...

seems like they actually got scared when Japan revealed the proof of radar lock to US. lol.

Now they're making NK as bait by doing nuclear tests. tsk3x

Japan will send a foreign ministry official to Beijing ... Beijing will most likely cancel this meeting last minute as happened so many times in the past.

I think it's the US to demand JP to send envoy to discuss territorial dispute with CN, it's good that JP back down from the position of "no dispute over those isles". So we can see that US force remain in JP actually for surpressing JP militarism instead of protecting JP. Abe understood it so he want to change consitution and kick out the us force.

It's good that someone is being sent and that talks are beginning, but WHY isn't it Abe?

Has he got anything better to do?

The US has NO role in this, they have no right to demand anything of Japan and never did. This is Japan's right to stand firm on and I expect and hope they will. This is not giving in in any way, it is setting the line and keeping China as honest as possible. They cannot ignore a face to face talk, nor can they lie or change the truth about the radar lock on which is just one step away from an attack. This entire situation is silly, China has NO right to the islands and never will no matter how much propaganda they try to use. Truth is truth. Good work Japan, keep it up.

Let just hope good news come from this. Whatever disagreement, solve it on table.

Don't know what they will discuss since Mr Abe has already stated there is no room for compromise. China will continue to send ships until either Japan or China shoots first. Looks like China ships were seen again on Friday so they are not backing down

An article run on the Oct. 17, 2012 Daily China says: "Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets have been an integral part of China's territory since Ming Dynasty (1368-1644)."

China's Ambassador to Britain Liu Xiaoming writes in The Daily Telegraph that the islands belong to China, by showing an old French map he happened to find and bought on a Brussels Street one day while strolling (China Daily Oct. 27, 2012).

Probably based on their firm belief that the Senkakus/Diaoyus are China's sovereign territories which they say Japan had stolen from Qing China, the Chinese youth protested against Japan by vandalizing Japanese businesses operating in China with such a vengeance.

But "historic evidence" is not always absolute because it's often the case that someone digs up counter-evidence to a hitherto self-evident truth. A professor from Nagasaki Junshin Catholic University recently found an official journal compiled by the Ming Dynasty, in which Ming's prefect is cited to state China's boundary ends with the Pratas Islands (Yomiuri Shinbun Jan. 21).

Is Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs sending Sugiyama to discuss such matters? He is a diplomat, not an historian. So, maybe, his mission will be to reconfirm the implicit "shelving" agreement made between Deng Xiaoping and Kakuei Tanaka in 1972.

Peace must be maintained in the area by all means. So it's a good start, I think.

CrisGerSanFeb. 18, 2013 - 12:53AM JST : The US has NO role in this, they have no right to demand anything of Japan

Do u really believe that? The US definitely has role, and always has, in this area! The US told JP: OK, I'll protect you, but you have to compromise with CN and you can't take use of this issue to revive militarism and I shall watch you! The US is big boss behind JP, he'll let JP to face or orally dispute with CN, but he won't allow JP to start war because it will harm benefit of US in CN. No doubt about it, it's basic policy of the US no matter JP like it or not!

CORRECTION:

In my post above, "Pratas Islands" in the 4th column should be "Matsu Islands." Mǎzǔ Lièdǎo (馬祖列島) is mistakenly equated with "Pratas Islands" in Wikipedia、which I quoted as it was.

The implicit "shelving" agreement was not made in 1972. Deng wasn't reinstated until 1977, so it's impossible for him to engage in diplomatic talks in 1972. That "shelving" agreement was made in 1978 when the Sino-Japanese Peace and Friendship Treaty was signed with Deng advising envoys from both countries to expedite signing the peace treaty first and leave the solution of the Senkaku issue to the wiser generations in the future.

China believe that Japan is accountable for the territorial disputes, here are several opinions of our logic that is believed need to be refined.

whatever the government and Ishihara, they are all Japanese for outside countries. it is absurd to distinguish Ishihara and the Japan government before other counties on these territorial disputes. because it is more like a trick in the eyes of other countries. It will be ok if Ishihara is any other country.

2.The territory claims against China and Russa are conflictive to each other. If the Senkaku Islands are the results of the war, the northern four islands will lost, because they are the result of the war too. Such a big confliction makes Japanese unreasonble. We should choose the better logic.

3.The Treaty of Shimonoseki is too old, If according to that treaty, we should claim the east parts of China mainland and Taiwan also which were also items in it. There is other treaty between now and then, such as Potsdam Proclamation, at least all the counties that involved attended that meeting. Few people in the world agrees to the Treaty of Shimonoseki except Japanese. This would be a stupid thing in the eyes of others.

4.Even the US stated that the reversion is only the right of administration, but not the ownership, as we believe that these islands are handed over by the US.

Can anyone answer upper questions reasonably?

This stupid island thing is getting out of hand. It may benifit Japan more in the long run if they just give China the damn islands with two conditions:

One-China agrees to jointly explore natural gas deposits with Japan and work togeather to economize on it.

Two- China agrees to take a stern stance on the NK, even to the point of cutting them off completely.

@TheDevilsAssistant, your advices are base on the facts that these islands are belong to Japan, and if Japan make the compromise .... . Actually Chinese people think Japan has no right to make any decision upon these islands, because Japan is just robber of them. So any conditions will be unreasonble to be made upon these islands.

IRobin-If these are facts as you stated, then they are Japanese.

@TheDevilsAssistant, I leave three questions here, if you can answer all of them, I will agree with you. 1.The territory claims against China and Russa are conflictive to each other. If the Senkaku Islands are the results of the war, the northern four islands will lost, because they are the result of the war too. Such a big confliction makes Japanese unreasonble. We should choose the better logic.

2.The Treaty of Shimonoseki is too old, If according to that treaty, we should claim the east parts of China mainland and Taiwan also which were also items in it. There is other treaty between now and then, such as Potsdam Proclamation, at least all the counties that involved attended that meeting. Few people in the world agrees to the Treaty of Shimonoseki except Japanese. This would be a stupid thing in the eyes of others.

3.Even the US stated that the reversion is only the right of administration, but not the ownership, as we believe that these islands are handed over by the US.

waiting for your response...