Noda's plan to buy disputed isles risks China's anger, say observers

By Linda Sieg

Politics Jul. 16, 2012 - 06:00AM JST ( 59 )

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

59 Comments

2

CrazyJoeJul. 16, 2012 - 07:54AM JST

These islands historically belongs to Japan and not China.　If China had jurisdiction, they wouldn't hesitate to use military force to occupy them.
0

YuriOtaniJul. 16, 2012 - 08:09AM JST

Any "retaliatory" actions will hurt China much more than Japan. Importing cheap crud from China makes the rich Japanese businessman more money which he will invest in countries that hate Japan. These rich buta are sucking the life's blood from Japan. These islands are part of Japan. For the 40th anniversary, send the Chinese Ambassador back to Peking.
0

BertieWoosterJul. 16, 2012 - 08:28AM JST

Time to get "Noddy" Noda off the case, methinks.

This needs someone who can negotiate.

Might be a bit hard to find. This is not a common skill among Japanese politicians.
3

marcelitoJul. 16, 2012 - 09:00AM JST

"Any retaliatory actions will hurt China much more than Japan." I think you are dreaming Yuri ..recent history including the rare earth spat a little while back indicates precisely the opposite. As a Japanese you may hate it but China has more leverage than Japan nowadays. That's a fact.
2

genjuroJul. 16, 2012 - 09:09AM JST

If China decides to take military action concerning these islands, which belongs to Japan and has Japanese owners, have they even considered the possibility that the US might intervene if this further escalates? Not to mention they've been making moves around the Spratleys, waters around Vietnam, etc. which are heightening tensions among their Asian neighbors.
1

minello7Jul. 16, 2012 - 09:29AM JST

If these islands belong either to Japan,China Taiwan or whoever else wants to claim sovereignty . Somewhere in the archives there must be the right of ownership , proving once and fore all who has the rightful claim. Is it so hard to find these documents. I'm sure some willing historian researcher could help them out. Or maybe they already know this.
-2

VirtuosoJul. 16, 2012 - 09:59AM JST

China is so cute when it's mad.
0

smithinjapanJul. 16, 2012 - 10:51AM JST

Li'l Japan is trying to put on its big-boy pants in a game it cannot hope to win (and getting ready to hide behind the US).

Yuri: "Any "retaliatory" actions will hurt China much more than Japan."

Wrong, Yuri. If China took the islands by force there is NOTHING Japan could do, as the US would not step in unless China literally attacked and killed Japanese forces (and the Japanese, if there, would stand down before they fought). China owns some 30% or so of the US in terms of bonds and what not, and if the US tried anything Japan could demand full repayment then and there, and that would crush the US. The most the US would do is send a couple of ships in at a distance as a show of support, and no more. Japan would lose the islands and demand the US helped, but for nought. Game over, the islands are permanently Chinese, thanks to right-wingers and Noda trying to score points.

By the way, Yuri... I've noticed on recent threads where tension has increased with China you've stopped demanding the removal of US bases and forces from Okinawa. Interesting.
1

globalwatcherJul. 16, 2012 - 11:34AM JST

Noda, execute it as you planned and be firm.
1

JimizoJul. 16, 2012 - 11:36AM JST

@Yuri If Japanese businesspeople stopped investing in countries which hate Japan, that would basically mean most of east and south east Asia. Hardly in Japan's interest, is it? Chinese opinion is seeing demands for a foreign policy reflective of its economic power and will not allow Japan to be seen as dictating terms on this issue. Do you want your much-hated US overlords to help out here?
-2

YuriOtaniJul. 16, 2012 - 12:25PM JST

you are wrong smithinjapan. What do you know about the Maritime Self Defense force? We are modeled after the US Navy and use their weapons. You are wrong again about the amount of US Bonds in Chinese hands. If China was hostile, the Americans would make it impossible for China to do anything with them. Look Smith, you can not just demand payment of US treasuries. They have different mature dates. True China can "dump" the to grateful buyers but what will that get them? like losing billions.

Anyhow We can hold off the Chinese Navy for at least some time. It will be a furball over the South China sea. Am sure we can put every Chinese ship on the bottom, and our specialty is sinking subs.

China can get angry like a little child deprived of a sweet but are out of luck in a economic or military fight.
-1

smithinjapanJul. 16, 2012 - 01:37PM JST

Yuri: "Anyhow We can hold off the Chinese Navy for at least some time."

No you couldn't. Not without the US help you always complain about.

"What do you know about the Maritime Self Defense force?"

I know the key word is 'defense', but you very often speak of war and declare yourself a 'warrior'.

"If China was hostile, the Americans would make it impossible for China to do anything with them."

Wow, we're suddenly pro-American?

Once again, Japan is bringing this all on itself, and will have only itself to blame if/when China takes the islands. And once again, the US will do nothing about it, nor will Japan (aside from crying foul and demanding China leave). Tokyo should retract its offer to buy the supposedly Japanese islands (why buy them if they belong to you already?) and let things simmer down; then go to more diplomatic talks. As it is they are playing into Chinese hands, and Japan will lose. And no, Yuri, if worse comes to worse China does not stand to lose more than Japan, it's vice-versa. China is now above Japan in the economy and elsewhere, and is not dependent on food and resources in the same way Japan is. It's painful for the Japanese to accept, I'm sure, but you NEED to accept those facts and take them into consideration before you and your 'defense' buddies keep cheering on a war.
-1

YuriOtaniJul. 16, 2012 - 02:05PM JST

smithinjapan, if America does not defend Japan then they will lose all of their bases. So what makes you think the US Secretary of State is lying? So my friend what does Japan have to lose? Cheap shoddy products from the peoples republic?

Look my friend, did you study the war in Europe? Tell me what became of the appeasement of the British Empire and France? Still think we can beat them and remember there is no war unless the peoples republic invades Japan.
0

Thomas AndersonJul. 16, 2012 - 02:13PM JST

Stupid Ishihara doesn't know a thing about foreign diplomacy... he doesn't understand that the world doesn't operate on his deluded nationalist logic.
-1

smithinjapanJul. 16, 2012 - 03:57PM JST

Yuri: "smithinjapan, if America does not defend Japan then they will lose all of their bases."

But you WANT them to leave the bases, no? Why the sudden change of heart? Do you now want them there or not?

And yes, they have a defense pact with Japan, but no war would be started over a few disputed rocks in the sea. Trust me. The US would stand behind Japan in word and at court if Japan wanted to go there (not that they or China would), but they would not engage any Chinese ships moving towards disputed islands, especially given that both the US and JSDF let subs go by Okinawa all the time.

"Still think we can beat them"

You're wrong. You might be able to hold them off for a few seconds, but like I said, any Japanese ships in the area when Chinese ships came to get the islands would simply stand down and let the Chinese take them. Firing on the Chinese ships, and I believe China DOES have the gall to make such a bold move if Japan keeps this garbage about buying the islands up, would be suicide.

But seriously, Yuri... I have to ask again, are you for or against the US presence in Japan given this issue? and believe me, I'm going to hold you to your opinion on the matter in any and all articles related to the US presence or Chinese pressure on Japan (and the US pact with Japan), as many posters have to date pointed out your flip-flopping.

"Look my friend, did you study the war in Europe?"

Likely more than you have.
0

smithinjapanJul. 16, 2012 - 03:59PM JST

Thomas Anderson: "Stupid Ishihara doesn't know a thing about foreign diplomacy... he doesn't understand that the world doesn't operate on his deluded nationalist logic."

Correct! Nor does he care -- he's as dangerous in terms of thinking as the aging North Korean generals who have spent their lives ready for war, save that Ishihara has no real power to do anything about it except blink us to death and call all those who don't agree with him 'gaijin' (gaijin or not!).

Yuri: ""Look my friend, did you study the war in Europe?"

Sorry, Yuri... meant to add, which war in Europe? There have been quite a few (or had you not studied that?).
-1

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 16, 2012 - 04:37PM JST

It is for the common good of the world for Japan to hold firm with respect to Senkaku islands. China is like environmentalists. Crazy, and if you give them and inch, they will take a mile.

Observers who say China's anger is risked are missing the important point. Senkaku islands are a part of Japan.

Even a few days ago, a crazy Chinese army person was suggesting Japan should "leave" Okinawa.

Japan will be laughing stock of the world if it is to give up it's own land to stupid Chinese.
-3

smithinjapanJul. 16, 2012 - 04:52PM JST

ihope2eatwhales: "Observers who say China's anger is risked are missing the important point. Senkaku islands are a part of Japan."

Says Japan. According to Japan, Dokdo and the Kuriles are also part of Japan. If Japan had it's way, the Southern Ocean, where they send their coast guard, would also be part of Japan (as would Australian and French waters!). Sadly or fortunately, not sure which, it's not so simple, hence the term 'dispute'. China also states the islands belong to China, so who's right? Just because you want to throw whaling (indirectly) into this issue and compare the Chinese to what you perceive to be radical environmentalists (do you realize you actually weaken Japan's stance on the issue by doing so?) doesn't mean they are any more one nation's than the other.

"Japan will be laughing stock of the world if it is to give up it's own land to stupid Chinese."

Newsflash: they already are. They became an even bigger one when they let ultra-right wingers say they're going to buy islands that already belong to the nation because, "They are Japanese!". Sorry, but I don't need to buy something that's mine to prove it's mine. It smacks of doubt, and ridiculousness. As for 'leaving Okinawa' -- it's silly, isn't it? Oddly enough, though, I know a lot of people in Okinawa who wish for the same thing, and then there are those who indirectly want China to take over by demanding the US leave (and now demand the US defend them if need be in regards to these islands! Always a circus down there!).
3

FarmboyJul. 16, 2012 - 05:04PM JST

Says Japan. According to Japan, Dokdo and the Kuriles are also part of Japan.

Yes, but each of those is a separate issue, and should be considered separately. In this one, the Japanese have a very good argument for ownership.
2

FarmboyJul. 16, 2012 - 05:15PM JST

Consider, for example, what is happening between China and the Phillipines. China basically thinks most of the world is historically Chinese. They do have a long history, but a lot has happened in a lot of places...countries have been established, land has been purchased, land has been won and lost in wars, people have migrated here and there, civilizations have risen and fallen.... We can't go back to the first man and woman to establish that everything is Chinese. Well, we can, but most of us would rather not.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120423/DEFREG03/304230007/Philippines-Warns-Neighbors-China-8217-s-Territorial-Claims
-3

smithinjapanJul. 16, 2012 - 05:19PM JST

Farmboy: "Yes, but each of those is a separate issue, and should be considered separately."

Agreed, but when the reasons the Japanese claim ownership for this set of islands is the same as the reasons other nations claim ownership for the other island disputes, while they should be considered separately the reasons for ownership don't change. Tamarama herself said Japan owns these as 'the spoils of war', and yet if I said the same thing about the Kuriles the Japanese would be up in arms (well, shaking their fists, anyway).

"In this one, the Japanese have a very good argument for ownership."

Agreed, but not if they force China to take them over. Anyway, for the exact same reasons they have a good argument for ownership here, SK and Russia have BETTER arguments for ownership in the other disputes. They ARE different issues, but that does not mean different logic and hypocrisy apply. If Japan claims ownership to these islands for reason of administering them then they relinquish the rights to the other islands for the same reason, bottom line; the difference being with the other island disputes Russia and SK nationals actually LIVE on the islands they administer. In this case? nope.
2

FarmboyJul. 16, 2012 - 05:45PM JST

smithinjapan, They are Japanese territory. Whether China needed to be pushed on this issue...maybe it could be argued that pushing caused the need to make a point, and that it wasn't the ideal action, but I don't follow your logic that Japan, by administering them (your exact meaning here?), caused Japan to relinquish their rights to anything else. Governments buy land from private individuals all the time (though they don't usually showboat the fact).

I do agree that China can probably take them, though Japan, if push comes to shove, has a weaker navy, maybe, but a superior submarine force. I hope things don't go there, however.
-3

tian4670Jul. 16, 2012 - 05:47PM JST

For Japan, the islands means more land and fish and resources. For China, it's deadly if those islands are truly lost. Opening up any map, you can see how close they are to Beijing and Shanghai. If islands are conceded to Japan, China then cannot object an (potential) US base... So, if a dreadful war is broken out, Japan (likely backed by US) is going to fight for more resources, China is going to fight for its survival as a strong nation. Who is going to having stronger will? You guess?
-3

smithinjapanJul. 16, 2012 - 08:30PM JST

Farmboy: "They are Japanese territory."

According to whom?
3

FarmboyJul. 16, 2012 - 10:06PM JST

According to whom?

Well, according to anyone except Taiwan and China. From Wikipedia:

Japan controlled the islands from 1895 until its surrender at the end of World War II. The United States administered them as part of the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1945 until 1972, when the islands reverted to Japanese control under the Okinawa Reversion Treaty between the United States and Japan.[3]

If Okinawa is Japan, then Senkaku is Japan. It's part of the same ball of wax.
-1

BertieWoosterJul. 16, 2012 - 10:11PM JST

Noda, execute it as you planned and be firm.

Firm?

"Noddy" Noda?

About as firm as a tall sapling in a hurricane!

Bending this way ...

And that ...

This way ...
2

basroilJul. 16, 2012 - 10:14PM JST

smithinjapanJul. 16, 2012 - 08:30PM JST

Farmboy: "They are Japanese territory."

According to whom?

According Japan, USA, documentation from the last two hundred years, and Lee Teng-hui, the president of Taiwan from 1988 to 2000. If the former president of Taiwan says the islands aren't traditionally Taiwanese, you can be assured that there is NO other claim to be made.
2

basroilJul. 16, 2012 - 10:21PM JST

tian4670Jul. 16, 2012 - 05:47PM JST

If islands are conceded to Japan, China then cannot object an (potential) US base... So, if a dreadful war is broken out, Japan (likely backed by US) is going to fight for more resources, China is going to fight for its survival as a strong nation.

The US already uses the area as part of their Okinawa based forces, so strike 1. The only way that there will be war is if China attacks the rest of Asia, so strike 2. China is far from strong, their military force is mostly counterfeit weapons from stolen (often incomplete) plans for NATO weapons (hell, "their" J-20 is a cheap copy of the F22 using old MIG building methods and reruns of Top-Gun for "weapons tests"), so strike 3.

China had no claim to the islands before 1969, nor did it attempt to make them even after the US forces left after 1969. In fact, their claims were issued almost immediately after the Japanese found oil and other resources there. They had a chance to ask for the islands back (along with Taiwan) after 1945, yet they didn't.
0

YuriOtaniJul. 17, 2012 - 01:04AM JST

smithinjapan, China would at once extend its EEZ right up and around the Okinawa islands. Next it will claim all of the Okinawa islands. They would make it a special political zone or something but the Chinese troops would move right in. The Americans would give up their bases like those in Panama.

My friend, I said the American bases have to go IF they do not defend Japan. How can you make statements for the American government being from Canada? Second have you ever served in the military? You support the rights for all of the other countries but Japan has to negotiate even for its own territory.
-3

JohhnyGlitterballJul. 17, 2012 - 01:07AM JST

@ Mr Otani

Why do you think China wants to do these and why do you always talk in war like ways? China does not want any incidents like this, they know they need investment to grow.

Do you really believe the stuff you spout?
-1

YuriOtaniJul. 17, 2012 - 03:37AM JST

Johnny my dad passed away years ago, please do not address me by Mister. You can address me as Miss Otani. If you think I am wrong, China has secured their EEZ all the way to the 12 mile limit with the PI. The reason is the PI is defenseless against their foe the Chinese. Yes they can have talks with the Red Chinese but to what end? All Red China will do is state this belongs to us. Japan on the other hand can defend herself from the communist threat. I trained most of my life to engage them in battle. All you write about meaningful talks is not true. China will not take no for an answer, this all started when the gutless UK gave up Hong Kong. The it might be as with the US force in the PI at the start of the Pacific war, being expendable or worse 天號作戰. There is no running away and appeasement does not work. Why do you bad mouth me for pledging to defend my home from invasion? Would rather die than be part of Red China and will come home in the event of conflict.
5

nigelboyJul. 17, 2012 - 03:51AM JST

Tamarama herself said Japan owns these as 'the spoils of war', and yet if I said the same thing about the Kuriles the Japanese would be up in arms (well, shaking their fists, anyway

Smith

Tamarama is incorrect. The soverignty of Senkaku was done legally without force under legally accepted rules at that time. They were never ceded from China or Taiwan since it was deemed terra nullius. This is supported by the fact that China recognized as Japan's territory as late as 1970 when they had every opportunity to voice their claim.

And again, both Northern territories and Takeshima were taken by force by Soviets and SK. This is why Japan is disputing them.

I sincerely hope that you finally do understand the different circumstances.
-3

JohhnyGlitterballJul. 17, 2012 - 04:46AM JST

@Ms Otani

The only person i read here talking about war with China is you. The have no reason to wage war Japan and will not do so.

You seem obsessed with war rather than dimplomacy, this is not the wild west era.

I do not bad mouth you just state that "what invasion?". Japan is not under threat.
-1

YuriOtaniJul. 17, 2012 - 05:39AM JST

Johnny, Red China has just finished an invasion of the PI. One of their missile frigates ran a ground just 60nm from the PI. Ask you what diplomacy? China is dictating terms and Japan is suppose to surrender. China wants control up to 12nm of our shores and that is for now. Please tell me how "talking" with Red China will do a thing? Perhaps it is time to support the true government The Republic of China. I do not think peace is possible with the PRC. It is like 1936 all over again. The British Empire failed in the Pacific too, they should of swatted down the Imperial government then. Peace at all costs is just delaying the war. If Hitler was put down in 36 and then the Imperial government read the riot act. Just think of all of the millions of people who would of lived and not died. People have forgotten the lessons of WWII and are repeating the mistakes now.
3

sfjp330Jul. 17, 2012 - 06:56AM JST

Chinese have a short memory. In 1971, an agreed minute to the Okinawa Reversion Treaty defines the boundaries of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito islands "as designated under" USCAR 27. The latitude and longitude boundaries set forth in the Agreed Minute appear to include the Senkakus (Diaoyus), meaning Japan owns these islands. The latitude and longitute boundaries was acknowledged by the Chinese government and by supporters of China's claims, who testified in the Okinawa Reversion Treaty hearings before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Chinese should go back to reading the agreed minute that defines the boundries.
-2

SerranoJul. 17, 2012 - 07:16AM JST

Looking at a world map, I see that China's land area is many times that of Japan's.
Being as how these islands are right about halfway between Okinawa and China, I say the Chinese should give up their claim on them.
1

sfjp330Jul. 17, 2012 - 07:32AM JST

China has become increasingly assertive. There is no flexibility in cooperations with China. Problem for China is that they will have to look at conflict areas like the Senkaku Island area and South China Seas for oil and natural gas needs in the immediate future. There is a rivalry is developing between China and Japan over access to energy resources. In China, automobile numbers growing at almost 20 percent a year, they could surpass the total number of cars in the U.S. in a couple decade. Also, China is limited by the fact that its proven oil reserves are small in relation to its consumption. China will import 70 percent of the oil from foreign sources by 2020 and will become increasingly dependent on Middle East, Africa, Russian, and Venezuelan oil. Even if China or Japan could drill close to Senkaku island, the real impact from the potential new oil source might have very little impact.

But undoubtedly access to Middle East oil will become a key issue in the relations between the U.S. and China. Clearly, in the short term, China recognizes that its energy security is increasingly dependent on cooperation with the U.S., rather than competition with it. China is banking on oil development projects outside the Middle East, and will insist on improving its relations with the main oil-producing states. However, long-term strategic links with countries hostile to the U.S. could also bear heavily on U.S.-China relations, especially troubling are China's arms sales to the region.
-6

tian4670Jul. 17, 2012 - 07:43AM JST

Chinese long held position is 'put difference aside, focus on economic development'.

Japanese decline talks as 'there are no issues related to the islands, they are Japanese'

Who is more arrogant? Who refuses diplomatic solution?
3

sfjp330Jul. 17, 2012 - 07:51AM JST

tian4670 Jul. 17, 2012 - 07:43AM JST. Chinese long held position is 'put difference aside, focus on economic development'.

Because China is not sure of their claim. If the Senkaku really belongs to China as Chinese claims, why would China offer to Japan a joint exploration few years ago? Japan refused.
2

YuriOtaniJul. 17, 2012 - 08:53AM JST

tian4670, What diplomatic solution?
2

basroilJul. 17, 2012 - 10:20AM JST

tian4670Jul. 17, 2012 - 07:43AM JST

Chinese long held position is 'put difference aside, focus on economic development'.

So that's why they first accepted a joint exploration proposal and then just unilaterally started drilling wells near the field? I hardly see how that is putting aside differences, that's just putting aside everything but their own greed.

Given that you use a Chinese name, we can tell your intentions, but nobody is going to trust propaganda released by the Chinese government. Please research on GOOGLE SCHOLAR or even Wikipedia before commenting, not just webow or the other counterfeit websites.
2

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 17, 2012 - 10:33AM JST

smithinjapan

Says Japan.

Japan has the historical evidence to show it, also.

If Japan had it's way, the Southern Ocean, where they send their coast guard, would also be part of Japan (as would Australian and French waters!).

This is quite a extreme thing to say. Senkaku islands belong to Japan. Southern Ocean is international waters. It does not make sense to compare them.

it's not so simple, hence the term 'dispute'.

Chinese military guy also wishes to have Okinawa as well. It is easy to start "dispute". Just imagine that what is not yours, is yours, then you can say there is "dispute". Since you raise international waters of Southern Ocean, it is similar thing in this respect. Australia has tried to claim international waters are it's own.

Both China and Australia are aggressive and nationalist. The world must be wary of such regimes.

Newsflash: they already are. They became an even bigger one when they let ultra-right wingers say they're going to buy islands

Of course they will "let" them. It is simple normal legal process in Japan. If Senkaku owner wishes to sell them, they have the right in lawful state that is Japan. Japan is not communist state.

I don't need to buy something that's mine to prove it's mine.

They are doing it for the protection of Japanese lands, not to prove it. The proof is the historical evidence.

It smacks of doubt, and ridiculousness.

I think you just have very very strong anti-Japan bias though.
6

OssanAmericaJul. 17, 2012 - 10:58AM JST

China's claim to the Senkakus is a joke. And arguments to suppport China's position are even moreso. The world knows China considers all of the South and East China Sea to be theirs. And that they are willing to resort to bullying tactics to threaten their Asian neighbors.China can whine all they want but unless they are prepared to confront the United States, which they are not, that's about all they can do. They haven't even been able to take Taiwan for the last 50 years for fear of confrnting the United States.
-7

CletusJul. 17, 2012 - 11:05AM JST

ihope2eatwhales

Japan has the historical evidence to show it, also.

Yeah anyone can make up any story and say its historical evidence and seriously Japan is world leader at making things up and selling them as "history"....

If Japan had it's way, the Southern Ocean, where they send their coast guard, would also be part of Japan (as would Australian and French waters!).

Since you raise international waters of Southern Ocean, it is similar thing in this respect. Australia has tried to claim international waters are it's own.

So Australia has tried to claim waters that are its own you say. Well thank you for clarifying that......

Both China and Australia are aggressive and nationalist. The world must be wary of such regimes.

LOL this comment actually made me fall of my chair with laughter. This would have to be the funniest comment l have ever read. So Australia is aggressive and nationalist sorry cant stop laughing. Really! OMG that is hilarious......

As you obviously know nothing about Australia, we are not ruled by a regime but a democratically elected government that governs for the people. Unlike China and Japan..... You want to talk nationalist have a look at your own country buddy. Cant go anywhere without seeing the nufties in the black vans screaming for foreigners to leave Japan....
Oh and for the record our "claim" is over a century old and actually predates your flimsy claim to the islands. And at least our claim is internationally recognised unlike yours.....

They are doing it for the protection of Japanese lands, not to prove it. The proof is the historical evidence.

What historical evidence, your made up history? And Smith is spot on you dont buy something you already own, merely trying to prove to themselves that they own it. Waste of resources and money.

I think you just have very very strong anti-Japan bias though.

Hard not to when you read some of the comments posted by Japanese people. Australia a regime and aggressive lol thanks that is the best laugh l have had for months........................
-7

CletusJul. 17, 2012 - 11:08AM JST

OssanAmerica

China's claim to the Senkakus is a joke. And arguments to suppport China's position are even moreso. The world knows China considers all of the South and East China Sea to be theirs. And that they are willing to resort to bullying tactics to threaten their Asian neighbors.China can whine all they want but unless they are prepared to confront the United States, which they are not, that's about all they can do. They haven't even been able to take Taiwan for the last 50 years for fear of confrnting the United States.

United States this United States that. Ossan the United States is a spent force pure and simple. Your military is tired, you can not even beat some rag tag people in Afghanistan, you struggled in Iraq, you are having problems with Iran and you really believe you could control China? The only thing stopping China is China. Nothing more nothing less
-1

basroilJul. 17, 2012 - 12:15PM JST

CletusJul. 17, 2012 - 11:05AM JST

If Japan had it's way, the Southern Ocean, where they send their coast guard, would also be part of Japan (as would Australian and French waters!).

Actually, Japanese coast guard is patrolling waters under UN directives just like Australia does. They are there to save lives and prevent piracy/environmental destruction.

Oh and for the record our "claim" is over a century old and actually predates your flimsy claim to the islands. And at least our claim is internationally recognised unlike yours.....

1) Australia is only from 1901 (Northern Territory after 1911), while the inclusion of Senkaku is 1885-1889, so no, it is predated by, not predates.

2) Senkaku is also internationally recognized as Japanese islands (in dispute).

What historical evidence, your made up history? And Smith is spot on you dont buy something you already own, merely trying to prove to themselves that they own it. Waste of resources and money.

Others and myself have answered your questions several fold. Short story shorter, not excluded at Potsdam, Taiwan president says they are Okinawan, and it is the same reason why land is bought for national parks (just because it is in your territory doesn't mean you have the rights to use it if you already sold it, so they are buying back the islands so they can be federally administered land, much like a national park).
-2

smithinjapanJul. 17, 2012 - 12:21PM JST

Yuri: "My friend, I said the American bases have to go IF they do not defend Japan. How can you make statements for the American government being from Canada?"

I'm from Canada so I can't be thankful the US military is here in Japan to protect us? Stop trying to deflect, Yuri. And no, you have NEVER said you support the US military so long as they defend Japan -- all you have ever said is that they must leave Okinawa, and you know it.

"You support the rights for all of the other countries but Japan has to negotiate even for its own territory."

Prime example -- you just fell back on the "woe-is-me" Okinawans suffer under the US military argument.

Nigelboy: "I sincerely hope that you finally do understand the different circumstances."

Doesn't matter whether they're different or not. Dokdo and the Kuriles are lived on and administered by SK and Russia respectively, and have been for quite some time. If they ever belonged to Japan (the Kuriles did, at least at the end of the war with Russia, with Dokdo it's questionable) they do not any longer. Japan administers the Senkaku islands, and has for some time, and this is ONE reason why they have a better claim to them.

ihope2eatwhales: "Japan has the historical evidence to show it, also."

Yes, Japan also has historical 'evidence' that the rape of Nanjing never occurred, and that there were no 'comfort women'. Just look at the history texts and it says it all! :)
-5

CletusJul. 17, 2012 - 12:25PM JST

basroil

"If Japan had it's way, the Southern Ocean, where they send their coast guard, would also be part of Japan (as would Australian and French waters!)." Actually, Japanese coast guard is patrolling waters under UN directives just like Australia does. They are there to save lives and prevent piracy/environmental destruction.

LOL you really believe this. How could you write this with a straight face. The only time the JCG ventures anywhere near the area mentioned is when certain research is taking place. Any other time they are not interested in saving lives or preventing piracy so please dont make me laugh.

1) Australia is only from 1901 (Northern Territory after 1911), while the inclusion of Senkaku is 1885-1889, so no, it is predated by, not predates.

The claim that IHOPETOEATWHALES is referring to has actually been claimed since 9th Jan 1841 and when in 1901 Australia became a federation this claim was passed to Australia.

2) Senkaku is also internationally recognized as Japanese islands (in dispute).

No Japanese administration is internationally recognised not Japanese sovereignty. There is a massive difference my friend so please dont confuse the two.

Others and myself have answered your questions several fold. Short story shorter, not excluded at Potsdam, Taiwan president says they are Okinawan, and it is the same reason why land is bought for national parks (just because it is in your territory doesn't mean you have the rights to use it if you already sold it, so they are buying back the islands so they can be federally administered land, much like a national park).

So one person claims the islands belong to Japan so it must be hey. Well why if it is so clear cut dont Japans allies the US come out and say they are Japanese as well? Why if it is so clear cut dont Japan go to the ICJ and get a ruling and then they would have world support on their side against the Chinese? Why. because its not as clear cut as you say or think thats why and shock horror they may actually lose the islands.....
2

nigelboyJul. 17, 2012 - 01:36PM JST

Doesn't matter whether they're different or not.

Smith

Again, they are YOUR definition why Japan has a better claim to the islands based on YOUR LIMITED knowledge of the subject. Japan has a better claim since they incorporated them PEACEFULLY without force based on terra nulllius. Furthermore, Japan has better claim from the standpoint that there were NO opposition from China for almost 75 years until U.N. study discovered underwater resources. Those are other DIFFERENCES.

So one person claims the islands belong to Japan so it must be hey. Well why if it is so clear cut dont Japans allies the US come out and say they are Japanese as well? Why if it is so clear cut dont Japan go to the ICJ and get a ruling and then they would have world support on their side against the Chinese? Why. because its not as clear cut as you say or think thats why and shock horror they may actually lose the islands.....

Spidapig24

We went over this already. If China wants to settle this via ICJ, they are more than welcome to do so since Japan has already signed the "declaration recognizing jurisdiction court compulsory". All they have to do is sign the declaration and Japan is compelled to show up and abide by the binding decision of ICJ, much like the frivolous whaling suit by Australia. Funny thing is though, China never mentioned once about settling this via ICJ. I wonder why???
-5

CletusJul. 17, 2012 - 01:41PM JST

nigelboy

Spidapig24

??? Who

We went over this already.

You may have gone over this, but then again who are you? You drop in with your comments attempting to belittle everyone else like you are the only one who could possible be right. Ah well.....
1

basroilJul. 17, 2012 - 05:44PM JST

smithinjapanJul. 17, 2012 - 12:21PM JST

Doesn't matter whether they're different or not. Dokdo and the Kuriles are lived on and administered by SK and Russia respectively, and have been for quite some time. If they ever belonged to Japan (the Kuriles did, at least at the end of the war with Russia, with Dokdo it's questionable) they do not any longer. Japan administers the Senkaku islands, and has for some time, and this is ONE reason why they have a better claim to them.

Liancourt Rocks were inhabited by Japanese since 1905, and were uninhabited for at least 400 years prior to that. Evidence shows that plants native to Japan are found in the island and were likely carried over by prior inhabitants.

In the case of the northern territories, Russia invaded the islands AFTER non-aggression treaties were signed, and immediately following the recall of Japanese troops following WWII. They were inhabited by some 60000 troops and civilians, and 2000 civilians lost their lives as a result of Soviet military actions. While surely small in comparison to some of the Japanese atrocities, it is still significant in an area that had just 10000 civilians prior to the war. These islands are also within few hours kayak distance from Hokkaido, compared to an hour's plane ride from Russia.

As with Liancourt, Japanese citizens lived there a hundred years ago, while there was no evidence of prior inhabitants for as long as could be recorded. As with both other cases, the islands in question are not covered under Potsdam.
-3

Tiger_In_The_HermitageJul. 17, 2012 - 06:43PM JST

Crazy Joe "These islands historically belongs to Japan and not China.　If China had jurisdiction, they wouldn't hesitate to use military force to occupy them." you need to brush up on history, perhaps taking a degree in History might help.
1

basroilJul. 17, 2012 - 09:39PM JST

TigerInThe_HermitageJul. 17, 2012 - 06:43PM JST

Crazy Joe "These islands historically belongs to Japan and not China.　If China had jurisdiction, they wouldn't hesitate to use military force to occupy them." you need to brush up on history, perhaps taking a degree in History might help.

I would suggest you read the published articles used as reference for the wikipedia article. Quite informative, and not as biased as chinese government owned media outlets.
0

YuriOtaniJul. 18, 2012 - 01:47AM JST

Still not sure what there is to talk about. It is like the person owning the property next to yours disputing the ownership of your pool. Shows dubious documents showing his family owned it for hundreds of years and 130 years ago your family "stole" it. China is being a thief and think about this, they did not have much of a merchant fleet due to the racists culture of China at that time. If you doubt me how about the "boxer" rebellion?
0

sfjp330Jul. 18, 2012 - 03:21AM JST

Cletus Jul. 17, 2012 - 11:08AM JST United States this United States that. Ossan the United States is a spent force pure and simple. Your military is tired, you can not even beat some rag tag people in Afghanistan, you struggled in Iraq, you are having problems with Iran and you really believe you could control China? The only thing stopping China is China. Nothing more nothing less

U.S. is pushing all the right buttons. Problem for China is that U.S. will control most of the major oil fields in the world and the domestic energy demand in China will rise significantly in a decade where leaders of China will be forced to cooperate with U.S. Reality is China has lack of real allies. Real strategic alliance or friendship is not a commodity that can be bought and bartered casually. It is based on shared security interests, fortified with similar ideological values and enduring trust. China excels in "transactional diplomacy" romping around the world with its fat checkbook, supporting usually poor, isolated, and decrepit regimes like Angola and Sudan in return for favorable terms on natural resources or voting against Western sponsored resolutions criticizing China's human rights record. China will remain deprive of dependable strategic allies because of geography, ideology, and policy. China is situated in one of the toughest geopolitical area in the world. It shares borders with Japan, India, and Russia; three major powers which have all engaged in military conflicts with China in the 20th century. It still has unresolved territorial disputes with Japan and India, and the Russians fear a horde of Chinese moving in and overwhelming the depopulated Russian far east. As natural geopolitical rivals, these countries do not make easy allies. Vietnam, is gearing up for another contest over disputed waters in the South China Sea. And just across the Yellow Sea is South Korea, historically a protectorate of the China, but now firmly an ally of the U.S. China's growing assertiveness on territorial disputes in the South China Sea caused Southeast Asian nations to realize that their best security bet remained the U.S. At the last East Asian Summit in Bali in 2011, most of the ASEAN countries spoke up in support of U.S. position on the South China Sea. Which allies in Asia really supports China? Only North Korea?
1

OssanAmericaJul. 18, 2012 - 05:27AM JST

CletusJul. 17, 2012 - 11:08AM JST United States this United States that. Ossan the United States is a spent force pure and simple. Your military is tired, >you can not even beat some rag tag people in Afghanistan, you struggled in Iraq, you are having problems with Iran >and you really believe you could control China? The only thing stopping China is China. Nothing more nothing less

China obviously doesn't agree with you. And I should think the PLA generals are far more qualified to assess US military power than you are. The US has "controlled" China for 50 years, just ask the Taiwanese. And since you don't seem to be awre, they are deperately playing "catch up" today and no match for the United States.Seems your nationlist pride has gone to your head?
0

Tom WebbJul. 18, 2012 - 09:01AM JST

JP government should stay out of the Senkaku islands dispute and let the big man buy the islands to become part of Tokyo-to. Tokyo gov has the will and balls to stick it to the China. He has all those homeless people wandering around Tokyo train stations that he can round up and settler them into productive work on the munin-to.
1

sfjp330Jul. 18, 2012 - 09:02AM JST

Cletus Jul. 17, 2012 - 12:25PM JST Why if it is so clear cut dont Japan go to the ICJ and get a ruling and then they would have world support on their side against the Chinese?

It is useless for Japan to bring the issue to the ICJ, which normally could settle questions of boundaries and questions of sovereignty, because China has said, time and again, that it would not agree to the jurisdiction of ICJ.
0

ihope2eatwhalesJul. 18, 2012 - 07:21PM JST

Yes, China should take it to ICJ if China thinks there is a problem.

They must show the evidence. Also Australia must show the evidence of it's claims as well. At least, Australia was brave and tried to bring evidence to the ICJ. China is just coward and does not do so. If they believe their claim, and are not just stirring the nationalism amongst Chinese, they would do so. I was impressed at least Australia was not just stirring the nationalism. It is a good idea to take their issue to the ICJ.

However, I am sure ICJ will rule against them, as they have no evidence to compare with Japan's.