China upset at disputed islands mention in Japan-U.S. meeting

Once again China shows the world it is nothing more than a petulant child who cant get its own way and blames others for its predicament. China should realize that just because it wants to take something that does not belong to it, does not mean it will succeed. China should should stop making wrong comments and should apologize to the world for its wrong and shameful behavior.

China....Nixon/Kissinger's pet boa constrictor snake........all grown up now........biting the hands that fed it.

"The United States and Japan should watch what they say and do and stop making the wrong comments to avoid complicating the issue and affecting regional peace and stability, he added."

"But most of all, the US and Japan are making statements that will cause us to lose face with our citizens."

Let's face it. The world is fighting ISIS and it's allied groups all over the planet, and China with it's massive military offers zero assistance. What a joke. Cough up or shut up, China.

Japan+USA win, china loses.

Japan and China cool off!

Amerikano be fair!

Those 'rocks' belongs to Ilan county of the democratic Taiwan Republic , backstabbed by the Amerikano in favor of China once and now in favor of Japan once again!

Why are these barren islands called "Senkaku" in Japan and "Diyaoyudao" in China?

Common nouns in a language are very ad hoc in naming objects. There's no reason why things are called as they are in languages. However, proper nouns are different from common nouns in that there's always reasons behind -- why they are called by such and such names.

Kubajima (久場島）or Huangwei Yu （黄尾鱮）in Chinese in the Senkaku/Diaoyudao Islands was an important landmark for ancient Ryukyu (Okinawa) seamen and traders navigating on the Okinawa-Fuchuan sea lane. These seafarers, who were thoroughly familiar with the Senkaku waters more than anyone else, called this landmark "Kubajima" because, according to one theory, the island was covered full with “kuba” (or Areca) palms. But I think it was called by that name because the island's shape is quite similar to that of another island called Kubajima, that is located about 40 km west of Naha, Okinawa Island, on the same sea lane. When necessary, the former was called "Iigun Kubajima" to distinguish it from the latter.

Wasn't Chinese "Huangmao (Yu)" （黄毛）as recorded by Chen Kan （陳侃, 1534）and "Huangwei (Yu)" recorded elsewhere, meaning yellow hair or tail, a phonetic conversion of Kuba(-jima)? Note that the k-sound of Japanese (and Okinawan) ordinarily corresponds to the h-sound in Chinese. Or did the Chinese think the island was inhabited by mythic animals with yellow tails or hair and so named it as such?

The easternmost island in the chain is officially called Taishojima in Japan, but historically it used to be called Kumi-Akajima by Ryukyu seamen. Here, too, we see the same mechanism of nomenclature as in the case of Kubajima. There's an island called Akajima in the Kerama Islands whereby Kumi-Akajima in the Senkakus must have been named after this with Kumi added to differentiate it from the original.

The Chinese calls this island Chiwei Yu (赤尾鱮), meaning "red-tailed island." Does it mean the Chinese believed the island was inhabited by animals with red tails? Isn't it a semantic conversion of what Ryukyu seamen called Kumi Akajima (久米阿嘉島）, which could mean "Kume Red Island" if interpreted in folk etymology?

The name "Senkaku" comes from English "Pinnacle Islands." The HMS Samarang made a port at Ishigaki Island three times and on its second port calling in May, 1845, it launched out upon an exploration of the "hitherto unheard-of" island group which the islanders called Iigunjima. Approaching the islands northward from Ishigaki Island on May 8, they must have been struck with the similarity of the first approaching island to Bartolome Island in the Galapagos, which is famous for its Pinnacle Rock, therefore calling the island group Pinnacle Islands. The Japanese name "Senkaku" was coined after this by a natural history teacher named Hisashi Kuroiwa, in 1900, who hailed from Kochi Prefecture in Shikoku and taught at Okinawa Normal School.

The Meiji government called the largest island in the chain "Uotsuri-jma", which is an apparent translation from the Chinese "Diaoyudao". It also called the adjacent islands lying southeast of it "Kita Kojima" (North Islet) and "Minami Kojima" (South Islet) respectively. The Chinese names "Bei Xiaodao" and "Nan Xiaodao" definitely come from these Japanese names.

Ancient Ishigaki fishermen called the island (group) "Iigun-jima." "Iigun" (rhymed with "eagle") means the head of a spear used in dive-fishing, a fishing method probably unknown to the Chinese. The reason why it is called so is similar to why the highest mountain in the Japan Alps in Honshu is called "Yarigadake." The top of the rugged mountain reminds one of the head of a spear ("yari").

Why did the Chinese call the island (group) Diaoyudao meaning "fishing island"? Did unworldly men, as often depicted in Chinese drawings, go there and spent days angling for fish? Or have Chinese fishermen come here to engage in blue-water fishing since ancient times? Note, however, that blue-water fishing started only recently with the development of modern refrigeration technology.

Isn't "Diaoyudao" a semantic conversion of what Chinese royal missions to and from Ryukyu were explained to by Ryukyu seamen and traders traveling and navigating together aboard the same tributary and trading ships? Note that Chinese royal envoys came to Ryukyu Kingdom 25 times during the period from 1373 to 1866. During the same period, Ryukyu seamen, traders and the Ryukyu King's appreciatory envoys sailed to China more than 200 times.

All these linguistic and historical facts must be taken into consideration before anyone says anything about sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyudao Islands on the basis of nomenclature.

put a tank there China, see what happens.. Not so tough now are you?

@ Peter14

"Once again China shows the world it is nothing more than a petulant child who cant get its own way and blames others for its predicament." Remove the word China from this sentence and its easy to say about another country....

Voice of Okinawa:

Very interesting, thanks. These are the kinds of issues that scholars from both sides should be studying seriously. No doubt there are other matters favouring China which you have not referred to. But this is the way forward. And if agreement cannot be reached, both sides should pledge to accept the findings of a neutral party (and ultimately a court) examining the same evidence. Then the problem could be solved. Same approach could be used for Takeshima and the Northern Territories as well. But as long as one or both sides sticks to its: "The territory is ours. There is no dispute.", nothing will be resoved.

theeastisred

That is what many have been saying for a LONG time. IF PRC finds themselves they have a case then they can take it to ICJ where Japan being a compulsory member is required to accept litigation at ICJ. Not once had either PRC or ROC for that matter have taken that step. In terms of Takeshima Japan had persuaded ROK multiple times that the dispute should be discussed at ICJ in which ROK not accepting once Japan's proposition.

theeastisred,

Yes, I think there's more room for the cool-headed discussion of the issue, at either a government or a civilian level, before one party hastily claims the islands belong to them historically and in light of international law.

Triring,

All well and good, but isn't Japan's stance re Senkaku identical to Korea's re Takeshima and Russia's re the Northern Territories? Namely that "The territory is ours. There is no dispute." ? A binding agreement by both sides to honour a third-party outcome would seem to be a necessary requirement to, er, tango.

theeastisred

Nope, not even close. Japan does not see any dispute but since we had enlisted as compulsory member of the ICJ, like I posted earlier, PRC can make claim to ICJ in which Japan will have to accept the Statutory Provision of the court. ROK on the other hand has no such obligations.

Basically what Japan is daring PRC/ROC is if they have proof of claim then take it up to the court to mitigate the process in which Japan will accept without hesitation but neither have committed only claiming it is theirs demanding full return without evaluation of evidence from a third party.

ROK on the other hand says that since they are not a compulsory member, Japan can huff and puff all they want but we are not going to court to determine actual legal status of the island knowing Japan will not try to reclaim through force as stipulated by the Japanese constitution.

Japan does not see any dispute

This is the issue. There is clearly a dispute, whether Japan 'sees' it or not. It's the same fallacious argument that the Education Ministry is trying to use in its new textbook guidelines, per the other story. It is reasonable for Japan to say to China, bring a case if you think you have one. And it is reasonable for Japan to try to bring cases re Takeshima and the Northern Territories. If S Korea and Russia don't respond, that is hard luck. But none of this means there are no disputes. Why do you think the matters get discussed if there are no disputes? Japan's position on opposite sides of the Senkaku vs Takeshima/N Territories disputes is especially illogical.

theeastisred

Nope not in the legal sense anyways. A dispute only occurs when it is officially recognized by both parties, the land had been occupied by force or when mediation is asked to solve the issue at court. None applies for Senkaku. Takeshima falls under forceful occupation and the Northern territories applies with forceful occupation and both parties officially recognizes that a dispute is exists.

Triring:

With regard to Takeshima, I am aware that Japan has tried to press a claim with S Korea, and been rebuffed. One can certainly say that Japan therefore has the moral high ground on that issue. If the situation with the Northern Territories and Russia is similar, then again maybe Japan has the high moral ground. Your use of the term 'forceful occupation', however, lacks objectivity and is clearly something that only Japan recognises. Your arguments are weakened by using emotive terms like that.

Regarding Senkaku, if what you say is true and China has never tried to press a claim then one can say Japan has the stronger legal position. But these legal and moral technicalities do not alter the fact that all three territories are disputed. That is blindingly obvious.

If you look at the UK, it clearly had territorial disputes with Spain over Gibraltar and Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Regardless of any legal status, anyone can see there are disputes. The UK government has a certain position, and others may have different positions. Nobody pretends the issues are resolved when they aren't.

if its yours put a tank there. end of discussion

What startling news. China is upset? Never heard of China being upset about anything before.