China should bring a claim to the ICJ. If they are not willing to do that and settle the issue, they should forget about it.

Having a permanent seat on security council, China uses every opportunity for self-interest, and not the world. This loophole at the U.N. allows China to play bully tactics thus disregarding the ICJ. The world community must stand up against China's way (taking).

Japanese nationalists have landed on an

The activists were part of a group who had sailed from Hong Kong

A team of South Koreans on Monday began a 230-kilometer relay swim

Can you guess why AFP(and others) only use "nationalist" when referring to Japanese?

"Solemn representations" from a dictatorship. Rich. The options on the table include having the islets revert back to US Military control. A new parking spot for the Osprey, rather than Okinawa. Since niether the CCP/PRC nor the Kuomintang on the ROC were parties to the Treaty of San Francisco, then it would seem to be a matter strictly between the US military and the Japan SDF. Right? http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sanfrancisco01.htm

China should bring a claim to the ICJ. If they are not willing to do that and settle the issue, they should forget about it.

China will never bring it to the ICJ. China maybe wants it but actually can't do it because it has already big issue of disputed isles in South China Sea and also bigger issues of Tibet and Uighur.

The Japanese government, which controls the islands, last week refused permission for any of the party to land.

In the light of what just happened: "Controls"?!? Seriously? You call that "controlling"? I'd hate see what could happen if they wouldn't "control" something. Wait... Oh yeah, there was that 3/11 thingie.

The whole world know Senkaku island belong to Japan, the problem here is because China is very greedy and want to claim the other island's countries is theirs. China wants to control the world but play very dirty in term of foreign policy stage, only intimidate small countries, scary of big countries. Believe me, once day China will claim the Moon belong to them too. Hopefully, Japan will stand strong and give China a very good lesson how to respect the other properties.

So those folks who went on the isles just basically throw egg in China's face but China is being mature about it and saying it means nothing.

Don't you think it's strange that Japan claims these islands the same year (1895) as the ending of the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)? Is it coincidence or opportunism?

One must understand that China was not involved in world politics or knowledgeable of international law like Japan in the late 19th century. Japan decided to model itself after Western countries while China tried to ignore them. So, of course, China had no idea of concepts like terra nullus.

Don't you think it's strange that Japan claims these islands the same year (1895) as the ending of the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)? Is it coincidence or opportunism?

Perhaps. But Japanese fisherman started his operation around the 1880's(request to incorporate by him was also during that time) with no sign of Qin Government/authorties so one can argue that Japan took a lot of consideration to wait to incorporate (over 10 years.)

One must understand that China was not involved in world politics or knowledgeable of international law like Japan in the late 19th century. Japan decided to model itself after Western countries while China tried to ignore them. So, of course, China had no idea of concepts like terra nullus.

I don't think that's the case. Japan's decision to incorpoate such terra nullius islands was to regulate the activities by citizens so that they could exercize adminstration in a form of taxes, levies, deed, permits, and exclusive lease agreements.

with no sign of Qin Government/authorties so one can argue that Japan took a lot of consideration to wait to incorporate (over 10 years.)

No one in Japan thought to write the Qin Govt. about the isles or Japan's intended purpose?? No wonder China thinks Japan stole the isles. No dialogue means Japan knew who those isles belong to and stole them.

No one in Japan thought to write the Qin Govt. about the isles or Japan's intended purpose?? No wonder China thinks Japan stole the isles. No dialogue means Japan knew who those isles belong to and stole them.

Did Qin incorporate it? When? What province? Where's the document?

People,

I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you that this was going to get serious when Ishihara put forward his crackpot 'buy the islands' idea.

I'm telling you now this is going to get a lot more serious with probably the Chinese navy putting out to sea next week.

Only the Japanese, a few foreign sycophants residing in Japan and American rednecks, whose geography lesson stretched to the railway network of NY state believe that Japanese claims to the disputed islands are nothing more than the war booty of the 1895 Sino-Japanese war and the imposed terms of the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

Of course the US government is going to use this as a source of mischief to build up anti-Chinese feeling within Japan and justification for the US military occupation of the Okinawan mainland, but they're hardly going to sacrifice US military lives for Japan's silly nationalistic claims.

Japan already has 440,000 sq kms of the Pacific Ocean as its EEZ, why does it need to be more greedy?

The sad thing is that the japan public, with their limited L2 language skills, have no access to anything but the party line imposed by the Japanese ruling elite on the Japanese media. God forbid that some Japanese TV channel might question the validity of Japan's territorial claims or interview an educated Chinese for an alternative articulate viewpoint; they'd be black vans galore and bullets in the post.

Japan is going to come out bad from this it and ones to suffer, like always in Japan, are not the ones who caused the problem, but the average Japanese Joe public.

nigelboy,

China is not a European Country so no they did not use European standards of ownership. But Japan knew who they belonged to and stole them

nigelboyAug. 19, 2012 - 10:18AM JST

I don't think that's the case. Japan's decision to incorpoate such terra nullius islands was to regulate the activities by citizens so that they could exercize adminstration in a form of taxes, levies, deed, permits, and exclusive lease agreements.

This is not about the islands. If it were so and Japan gave up its right to a 200 mile EEZ package that accompanies the ownership of the islands, this problem would be solved in a day.

Probably neither China or Japan would be interested in the cost of upkeep of these islands. This is about Pacific sea grabbing, something Japan has been doing since the beginning of the 20th Century.

Japan already has 440,000 sq kms as an EEZ, how much will ever be enough?

Ｗith guests arriving at this rate the owner should put up turnstiles and serve かき氷

Dog This is about Pacific sea grabbing, something Japan has been doing since the beginning of the 20th Century.

Auhh the EEZ system only started after WW2. Your statement has no substance from the start.

nigelboyAug. 19, 2012 - 10:58AM JST

That would mean giving those 200 mile EEZ to China and you think the problem is solved?

Come on.. get a grip..... China and Taiwan also gives up any 200 mile EEZ based on the criteria of Senkaku/Daiyo islands.

Both China and Taiwan would jump at the opportunity.

The reason why China does not take the case to ICJ is because if they lose the case, they may lose jurisdiction to Taiwan (Formosa) .

SamuraiBlueAug. 19, 2012 - 11:07AM JST

Auhh the EEZ system only started after WW2. Your statement has no substance from the start.

My statement has total validity, if you had bothered to pay attention in your history class.

The driving principle of Japan's involvement in WW 1 and the negotiations at Versailles was to gain as many of the ex-German Pacific territories as their own - a Pacific sea grab - which has been a continuent of Japanese policy ever since

Both China and Taiwan would jump at the opportunity

Thanks Dog. Unfortunately for China, they jumped at this opportunity around South China Sea thereby killing/injuring/intidating by brute force to occupy rocks and reefs while Japan is merely exercizing her EEZ based on UNCLOS. And you have the nerve to imply that Japan "greedy"?

A little.. I mean a small fraction of objectivity would be kindly appreciated.

a Pacific sea grab - which has been a continuent of Japanese policy ever since

Sigh. On a terra nullius that had very little commercial value (at that time).. There is a reason the islands that Japan incorporated (Senkaku/Takeshima) had nobody living there. Now you're going to claim that Japan had the foresight to see the that there will be underground natural resources that could be used industrially in those times? Please.

@Dog

Since EEZ did not exist at the time you post how does it make it relevant? You are reaching.

Japan's EEZ is an extension of the contigeous zone of 12 nautical miles that Japan held ownership from the start since Japan owned those islands in the pacific from the start.

These islands are part of Okinawa and thus part of Japan. My ancestors have fished there for generations

nigelboyAug. 19, 2012 - 11:24AM JST

Thanks Dog. Unfortunately for China, they jumped at this opportunity around South China Sea thereby killing/injuring/intidating by brute force to occupy rocks and reefs while Japan is merely exercizing her EEZ based on UNCLOS. And you have the nerve to imply that Japan "greedy"?

Again, like with nearly every thread, every day on this site, you go off on a tangent.

I am saying that all parties concerned with ownership of the Senkaku Daiyo islands, as a precondition to negotiations, give up the right for the Senkaku's to have EEZ package accompanying ownership of them.

Discussions on ownership of the islands would be resolved within a day because nobody would want to pay the upkeep of a handfull of barren islands, wher only one has anny water supply.

I can quite confidently say that China and Taiwan would totally agree with the preconditions, and Japan would not.

Japan has grabbed 440,000 sq kms of the Pacifiic as its own EEZ. China's Pacific EEZ is about 800,000 sq kms. Yoy tell me, when we include the variables of landmass and population, who is being more greedy?

The Okinawans used to be good at appeasing both the Chinese and the Satsuma people. Maybe they can use their skills at keeping China quiet.

And Yuri, I think your explanation is the simplest. Until Okinawa decides it's not part of Japan, then Senkaku belongs to Japan. There's been fishing for centuries, they've been claimed by japan, Japanese lived and worked there for years, and they've been administered by japan for decades. Everyone knows that Japan is not going to invade Taiwan OR China, so there is nothing for anyone to fear from these islands staying as Japanese land.

If Japan relinquishes the right to them, then what happens between Taiwan and China?

Dog

Japan has grabbed 440,000 sq kms of the Pacifiic as its own EEZ. China's Pacific EEZ is about 800,000 sq kms. Yoy tell me, when we include the variables of landmass and population, who is being more greedy?

What really has one have to do with the other?

Are you suggesting that a larger population should own larger EEZ regardless of geographic characteristics?

Boy you are really reaching.

SamuraiBlueAug. 19, 2012 - 11:30AM JST

Since EEZ did not exist at the time you post how does it make it relevant? You are reaching. Japan's EEZ is an extension of the contigeous zone of 12 nautical miles that Japan held ownership from the start since Japan owned those islands in the pacific from the start.

I've just given you a basic hisory lesson in Japanese Pacific policy in the 20th Century. You obviously paid more attention during your history class than during your geography one.

Have looked at a map of how far away the Senkakus are from Japan?

I am saying that all parties concerned with ownership of the Senkaku Daiyo islands, as a precondition to negotiations, give up the right for the Senkaku's to have EEZ package accompanying ownership of them.

Probably workable if it weren't for China's unilateral territorial conquest in South China Sea. In addition, I don't see China honoring "agreements" in spite of the fact that Japan has given then some in consideration.

Discussions on ownership of the islands would be resolved within a day because nobody would want to pay the upkeep of a handfull of barren islands, wher only one has anny water supply.

I think it should be resolved whereby China signs the Declaration where they abide by the jurisdiction and judgment of ICJ(U.N. Organ) This way, they can resolve this dispute as well as the South China Sea Dispute with other nations under the international laws.

Japan has grabbed 440,000 sq kms of the Pacifiic as its own EEZ. China's Pacific EEZ is about 800,000 sq kms. Yoy tell me, when we include the variables of landmass and population, who is being more greedy?

Well. The current China got that way by conquering various ethnic regions and groups so I don't think Japan should award them for their bad behavior.

I think the best options is for China to sign the Declaration whereby she agrees to abide by the jurisdiction and judgement of the ICJ which is a U.N. organ. This way, they can settle their dispute with Japan along with the mess in South China Sea. Let the law decide who owns what.

Have looked at a map of how far away the Senkakus are from Japan?

I looked. 0km.

SamuraiBlueAug. 19, 2012 - 11:47AM JST

Are you suggesting that a larger population should own larger EEZ regardless of geographic characteristics?

I'm suggesting that a country's EEZ should bear some relationship to a country's size.

Sorry I made a mistake with Japan's EEZ.

It's actually 4,500,000 kms of the Pacific ocean,

While China's Pacific EEZ is

3,000,000 kms

Has no relevance whatsoever. YOU are reaching.

Ossan: "China should bring a claim to the ICJ."

THAT would be interesting to see, given that Japan claims there is no dispute. They would be required to heed the call, but WOULD they?

YuriOtani: "These islands are part of Okinawa and thus part of Japan."

And on another thread you say they are under the control of Okinawa, not Japan. Make up your mind, will you, Yuri?

THAT would be interesting to see, given that Japan claims there is no dispute. They would be required to heed the call, but WOULD they?

Well. It's China's job to make it a claim by filing it to ICJ where it becomes an internationally recognized "dispute".

Smithy, you never get it do you. Japan is a compulsory of ICJ, JAPAN is REQUIRED to attend UNLIKE ROK.

Get it through your head, many had posted this FACT over and over again. Your act is considered trolling.

Did Qin incorporate it? When? What province? Where's the document?

Legalese beaurocratic bullcrap. The same type of rubbish used to deprive native tribes of their land. No one making such arguments should be trusted with so much as a pebble in your garden.

Well. It's China's job to make it a claim by filing it to ICJ where it becomes an internationally recognized "dispute".

They can't do that until they are recognized and have diplomatic relations. And since they were denied those, what we have is more legalese beaurocratic manure from you. You would take candy from a baby, and declare the baby has no paperwork, in triplicate, with the proper stamps from the proper authorities, to prove the candy was his!

Japanese activists swam to some rocks? As ever, the Japanese prove they follow rather than lead!

Will they be arrested? Trespassing is still trespassing, isn't it?

Oh yes, China made the claim as soon as they were recognized, 1970 or 71. The horse goes before the cart, and only a mindless beaurocratic type would try to claim otherwise.

SamuraiBlueAug. 19, 2012 - 12:22PM JST

Smithy, you never get it do you. Japan is a compulsory of ICJ, JAPAN is REQUIRED to attend UNLIKE ROK. Get it through your head, many had posted this FACT over and over again. Your act is considered trolling.

It's you that doesn't get it. Go look up Nicaragua v. the United States of America 1984, when the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua.

The decisions are non-binding, even for compulsory members of the ICJ, as America proved.

Alternate Universe: "Will they be arrested? Trespassing is still trespassing, isn't it?" Japanese citizen on Japanese soil, why would they be arrested? Illegal Chinese on foreign soil, without regular papers, that requests deportation.

Try to go to China without proper visa.

Japan should give up any claim to these islands as an apology gift to China.

The Chinese are still upset with the Japanese about WWII and the Nanjing Massacre. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese were brutally, brutally murdered in horrendous ways by Japanese soldiers. There was even a contest between two lieutenants on who could kill 100 Chinese first with a sword. These were mostly civilians, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_massacre

Why do you have to behead civilians so cruelly? It's disgusting and a horrible crime against humanity.

A few small islands are not just compensation, but it would be a good gesture along with a real formal apology. I think the Chinese would move on. They are actually quite gracious and open people from my experience.

Diaoyu has always been part of China, japanese are lying. China territories list include 205 countries belonging to China that are actually illegally occupied, like USA, Canada, all european countries, all african and asian countries....etc. All Earth's inhabitants MUST leave the land they are illegally occupying and head to Venus or Mercury.

Leave this planet you illegal squatters! China is ordering you to stop occupying its land! go to the Moon or anywhere you want but stop illegally squatting this planet you non-chinese squatters!

PS: China is also asking to the USA to stop sending space capsules on its chinese planet called Mars. It belongs to China since ancient times. Stop it USA.

Keiko Yamatani said... I think this kind of expedition will help raise awareness around the world.

No one really cares except of course China. Besides, nationalist right wings don't believe in "non-Japanese" world so what's the point anyway?

@AlternateUniverse

Make your case at ICJ if you think PRC was deprived of her chance it's that simple. Crying out it was not fair is not going to get you anywhere.

@Dog

Make your call AFTER Japan had not followed it's compulsory obligations, not before. By the way the US is/was on the security council like PRC so PRC can force the ruling if they want just like USA did.

"Around a dozen members of the right wing group Gambare Nippon swam ashore..."

And when things increase in terms of tensions and rhetoric, the Japanese will all blame it on China. It takes two to tango, kids, and in this case we have two little brats trying to dance.

SamuraiBlue: "Smithy, you never get it do you. Japan is a compulsory of ICJ, JAPAN is REQUIRED to attend UNLIKE ROK."

Required by whom? They could easily say it's a domestic issue and they are not required to attend any international court on the issue, since they claim no dispute. Bottom line is they are willing to do so when it suits them, and not willing to do so when they feel it does not.

Smithy, just read the meaning of compulsory in a dictionary would you it's really getting stall.

It's you that doesn't get it. Go look up Nicaragua v. the United States of America 1984, when the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua.

Dog

It seems that your argunent goes along the lines that since China is permanent SC member of the U.N., a non member should comply with their demands despite their never ending territorial ambitions.

I guess from a non member perspective, it would appear that they have no choice to.use whatever means to prevent this from happening in which case, Japan would have to build a JMSDF base there.

SamuraiBlue: " just read the meaning of compulsory in a dictionary would you it's really getting stall."

What does 'getting stall' mean?

Anyway, my point still sticks, and you guys still can't answer. Sure, Taiwan and China could make a claim with the ICJ, but so could Japan. Japan chooses not to on this issue and on the Kuriles, but demands it of another nation with Dokdo. Hence, the HYPOCRISY -- try looking up that word in a dictionary because your arguments are getting, ummm... 'stall'.

nigelboyAug. 19, 2012 - 02:30PM JST

Dog

It seems that your argunent goes along the lines that since China is permanent SC member of the U.N., a non member should comply with their demands despite their never ending territorial ambitions.

You have serious comprehension problems with written English or you are trolling.

My point is that ICJ decisions are not binding, even for compulsory signatories of the ICJ. In 1984, the US chose to ignore the ICJ ruling on the US backing of anti-sandinista forces

My point is that ICJ decisions are not binding, even for compulsory signatories of the ICJ. In 1984, the US chose to ignore the ICJ ruling on the US backing of anti-sandinista forces

Yes. It's one of those rare decisions that was not implemented as per ICJ website. Reading a few souces of your example, I believe U.S. Being the member of permanent SC with veto power had a lot to do with it. But in this case, the plaintiff will be PRC whomhas permanent membership so I really don't see the parallels here. If Japan wins the ICJ decision, what could PRC do?

Finally, someone who stands up against the bullies of Asia.

"Have looked at a map of how far away the Senkakus are from Japan?

I looked. 0km."

and i've looked as well, it's Japan itself.

"PS: China is also asking to the USA to stop sending space capsules on its chinese planet called Mars. It belongs to China since ancient times. Stop it USA."

haha nice one...seriously.

Japan should give up any claim to these islands as an apology gift to China.

"The Chinese are still upset with the Japanese about WWII and the Nanjing Massacre. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese were brutally, brutally murdered in horrendous ways by Japanese soldiers. "

I'm a Chinese myself and i do understand one simple point that the majority of the nowadays Japanese have nothing to do with THOSE CRIMES.

"A few small islands are not just compensation, but it would be a good gesture along with a real formal apology. I think the Chinese would move on. They are actually quite gracious and open people from my experience."

you need to separate the nationalist Chinese and the regular Chinese. The regular people don't give a damn about war as all they'd think is to make money and enjoy life. The nationalists, on the other hand, they don't just want Senkaku but the entire Japan. They want the Nanjing incident to re appear, but at Tokyo instead. Go ahead and read at chinese nationalists online blogs if you can read chinese. Btw, who do you think in charge of China?