text:
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
It seems TE still has a long way to go to even narrow its gap with Bloomberg or New York Times which value facts more than opinions. Objectivity is the core of a meaningful news article. Without that, you are just The Views.
You need to understand the Economist is different than Bloomberg/NYT. It does not try to be impartial, if you don't understand that, you should not read the Economist.
LSE Professor (Political Economy) Robert Wade sent a letter to TE, which is full of mistakes.
"China has claimed the islands for centuries . . ."
China never ever claimed anything to Japan concerning the Senkaku Islands in HISTORY, until oil was found there in 1970s. The Japanese government had no knowledge whatsoever about Chinese claims on the islands until then.
"the Chinese Communist Party was excluded from the conference that produced the (peace) treaty."
Japan already made 2 peace treaties with 2 Chinas independently; Treaty of Taipei 1952, and Japan-communist China peace treaty 1978. Both treaties never mentioned the Senkaku Islands, never changed anything about the legal status of it. Both Taiwanese and Chinese governments agreed and signed the treaties.
"Until 2010 the two governments left the settlement of their claims undefined. This was the agreement that came out of the diplomatic recognition and friendship talks between the government of Japan and Zhou Enlai in 1972 and Deng Xiaoping in 1978."
The Japanese government has consistently rejected Chinese (Deng Xiaoping's) "postponement" logic since 1970s many, many times, saying that no legal dispute exists concerning the Senkaku Islands. Naturally there was no "agreement" of any kind between Japan and China, because the Japanese side never gave any consent, and has carefully evaded every possibility that the Chinese assertion that Japan and China once "agreed to talk later" might look feasible.
"China's "aggression" towards Japan has to be understood in this context. In a civilised world both sides would bring the case to the International Court of Justice."
ICJ never deals with warfare, because it acts only within the agreement by the nations. China is waging military threat to Japan, India, and even the U.S. with its nuclear force. Chinese aggression on the Senkaku Islands is only a part of its military expansionism. As a professor of politics, he should be remembering that the cold war was never settled by ICJ.
He should be learning the difference between peace treaty and armistice, occupation and conquest, administrative rights and territorial sovereignty. They all have a common principle; military action doesn't ultimately settle the sovereign issues, you always need a peace treaty for it. I suppose nobody from the international law field would deny the superiority of San Francisco Peace Treaty to armistices. As an amateur, Professor Wade was courage enough. He doesn't seem to have the necessary understanding of the international law, and even the basic facts of Japan China relations. At least he should be reading the basic Q&A by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to start criticism.
Islands' story
SIR – Your leader about the dispute between China and Japan over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands presented China as the aggressor in the East China Sea and Japan as the victim ("Dangerous shoals", January 19th). A different story can be told if you go further back. China has claimed the islands for centuries and always treated Japan's annexation of them in 1895 as illegal.
The Potsdam Declaration of 1945, which set out the Allied Powers' terms for Japan's surrender, deprived Japan of all its overseas territories, including the islands. But the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951, signed by Japan, actually broke those conditions by restoring the islands to Japanese control (but leaving open the issue of sovereignty).
Related topics
Nature and the environmentEarth scienceClimate changeClimatologyScienceMoreover, the Chinese government, by then controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, was excluded from the conference that produced the treaty. For both those reasons the Chinese government regards the handing back of the islands to Japanese control as illegitimate.
Until 2010 the two governments left the settlement of their claims undefined. This was the agreement that came out of the diplomatic recognition and friendship talks between the government of Japan and Zhou Enlai in 1972 and Deng Xiaoping in 1978. Deng famously suggested that contentious issues like Senkaku should be "left to the wiser heads of later generations". In practice, Japan accepted the islands' limbo state, exercising only "practical control" by shooing away non-Japanese fishing boats.
The current dispute began in 2010 when the Japanese arrested a Chinese fishing boat in defiance of an agreement not to apply domestic laws to trespassing fishermen and proposed to put the captain on trial. This provoked an unexpectedly furious Chinese reaction, which stiffened the Japanese government's determination not to appear weak in its dealings with China.
China's "aggression" towards Japan has to be understood in this context. In a civilised world both sides would bring the case to the International Court of Justice.
Professor Robert Wade
Department of international development
London School of Economics
REUTERS News Agency reported...
China had filed a application to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf -- to verify that the Diaoyu Isles are an extension (Prolongation) of The Chinese Mainland land territory, as part of its continental shelf
Under the UN Convention--- any islands that are an prolongation (extension) of the mainland territory as part of its continental shelf is allowed to extend beyond a 200 nautical mile "economic zone"
If the UN Commission meeting in August 2013 --- can confirm that the Diaoyu is a part of the China's continental shelf----then China have an extremely strong case as the rightful owner of Diaoyu Isles
Japan can see its case slipping away === sayonara Senkaku
disagree still a weak laughable claim
Once the UN Commission had proven that the Diaoyu Isles are part of the China Continental Shelf---- then China is confirmed as the rightful owner of the Diaoyu under International Law/Conventions
Japan is also a signatory to the UN Convention -- so it is too late for Japan to back off
Japan have better honor its committment to what it had signed under the UB|N Convention === otherwise it appears as a treacherous , dis-honorable nation whose signature is not worth the paper it is written on
china is the dishonorable one here .trying every trick lol the continental shelf means diddly squat. our lawers would laff at that foolish premise . you failed law school lol
I wonder if Japan can sit down and talk with a country like China.
As you can see many comments by Chinese bellow, they tend to ignore important facts that (1)China never expressed any objection to Japan's sovereignty over the Senkaku islands until 1970(2)Maps, books, newspaper published in China treated the Senkaku islands as Japanese territory until 1970(3)No Chinese ever lived in the Senkaku islands, and they just repeat what they want to talk(mostly about WW2). China says that Mr.Chen or someone wrote a book about a journey to Ryukyu and recorded the name of Diaoyu island in 400years ago could be an evidence of Chinese territory.
Do we have to discuss about those old books? Japanese are really fed up with endless lies and poor excuse of China. This is why Japan wants to go ICJ.
"I wonder if Japan can sit down and talk with a country like China."
Oh, No. No, no, no.
If you shake hands with those kind of Chinese, you must check the number of your fingers left afterwards.
Their aim is to draw Japan to the table and get something.
Getting something is much better than nothing for China, who has fabricated the case only in 1970.
In fact, Japan wants to rely on the protection of its master, the USA, in order to illegally grab other countries' property, China, Korea and Russia.
China never expressed any objection to Japan's sovereignty over the Senkaku islands until 1970....
Japan passed a law in the government to Japan's sovereignty secretly as shown:-
.....Thus, on January 14, 1895, the Japanese Cabinet passed a resolution to annex the islands, a few months before the Shimonoseki Treaty which ended the first Sino-Japanese War was signed, in April 1895. Interestingly, in spite of the claim that repeated surveys were carried out, the Cabinet annexed only two of the three islands initially surveyed in 1885, Kuba-jima and Uotsuri-jima; the Taisho-jima islet was not annexed until 1921.35 As with all the aforementioned documents, the Cabinet Decision was kept secret until declassified in 1952.36 The actual placing of the physical marker did not take place until May 10, 1969, in the midst of a heated sovereignty dispute.37.....
Prior to 1972, the Japanese government referred to an official 1970 Ryukyu Civil Government statement, which referenced Imperial Edict No. 13 dated March 15, 1896, as further confirmation of Japan's claim to title. This Imperial Edict presumably constituted an official proclamation of the incorporation act of January 14, 1895. However, the decree did not name the two islands.38 Neither were the islands recorded in a subsequent Okinawa official publication of districts placed under its administration pursuant to Imperial Edict No 13.....
The above citation canshow the world how cunning/foolish the Japanese are!? How dare the outside world object for the Japanese only jexk off for pleasure in private secretly!
Japan's "purchase" reopened the still festering wound of the aggressive wars Japan waged against China in its imperial expansionism.
Now it seem that China is open to any option but not eager to talk except the poor Japanese is sending envoys of a bunch of ex 0r former priemers to pay visit/tribute to China asking/begging for talks!
I agree with you.Janpan should have a conversation with China to solves all those problems.Otherwise,a new reign is about to happen.
Really? It seems that Japan has been changing history about the second world war, how there is no massacre in China and Southeast Asia committed by the Japanese. What hypocrites.
Really? It seems that Japan has been changing history about the second world war, how there is no massacre in China and Southeast Asia committed by the Japanese, or shall we refer to the "New Books" written by Japanese government
the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf will start validating China's claim that the Diaoyu Islands are part of China's continental Shelf
If this is so----then, under International Law, Diaoyu Islands legally belongs to China
China had earlier submitted a request to the UN Commission to validitate China's claim----but Japan had said that the UN should not get involved
The UN Commission is due to meet in August 2013 --- in order to verify the Diaoyu's as part of China's continental shelf
The bottomline=== Japan is feeling the heat, and Japan is feeling the pressure
A Japanese former ambassador to China---- a Mr.Niwa , had said that "The Japanese Govt had under-estimated China's response to its nationalizing of the Diaoyu Islands ===
.. a fatal mistake=== one might say
Here is an interesting read from Asia Times:
Japan beats chest in midlife crisis
UN has no power to give legally binding decision. if they say its on china's shelf its still Japans property and will remain so!! lol china grasping at straws and the world is watching and laughing at chinas foolish antics and incorrect mistakes
Yeah, China is too eagerly aggressive in how to be a world superpower but ironically without soft power. Others might fear somehow but no one might really respect that deeply inside. All should be unique against it so that a new world war might be avoided, do you think?
The convicted war crime country after ransck/rape/massacre, without sincere repent, laying their fingers at their victims's stance to protest theft of their beloved sovereignty as too eagerly aggressive in how to be a world superpower but ironically without soft power!?!
Unscrupulous Japanese with fuzzy allegations!?
they own the islands. Rock Solid claims.ww2 has no bearing on dispute lets no forget Tibet atrocities which are ongoing .shame on evil china stealings getter harder for you lol
Let's not forget the war crime that the Japanese done to the Koreans & hilippines.....War crime country acting the show the theft crying loudly THEFT!!?
war crimes 70 years ago . chinas war crimes continue in Tibet
In2013, Illegal procession/obtaining by deception others property (islands), the theft alleges the rightful owner is incursion, hegemony while they try to privatising the theft property!Japan try everthing possible to containment and ask their colonial master jointly to intimidate the owner to linger their crime.
Truly unscrupulous!?
This exactly the mentality of the war criminal nowadays!
china is also a war criminal but you r not listeningh. china NEVER had posession and never will .nothing was stolen
china is also a war criminal but you r not listeningh. china NEVER had posession and never will .nothing was stolen
Japan is truely a CONVICTED country with the King and its chief ministers condemned as Class A war criminal.
How dare avaricious Japanese as war criminal shouting at the victim country not to compensate but falsely alleged China as war criminal!?
china truly convicted of killing 1.2million Tibetans rape torture and everything else. how dare stupid person accuse anyone when you are guilty lol read real history pal the whole world is against you and evil china lol long live Japan and Senkaku is ours lol
china truly convicted of killing 1.2million Tibetans rape torture and everything else. how dare stupid person accuse anyone when you are guilty lol read real history pal the whole world is against you and evil china lol long live Japan and Senkaku is ours lol
china truly convicted of killing 1.2million Tibetans rape torture and everything else. how dare ypu person accuse anyone when you are guilty lol read real history pal the whole world is against you and evil china lol long live Japan and Senkaku is ours lol
Even if your allegation were correct, It doesn't mitigate/legitimate any of Japan's notorious war crime no mercy killing in gigantic scale!
Every body makes mistake/crime!
The biggest crime for anyone is to denial of mistake/crime!?
the debate is about the islands .safe to say both sides have done terrible things but only china brings it up whenever it has a disagreemant with Japan
"the existence of any agreement is not the hinge . . . "
That's why Japan should try their utmost effort to honor the treaty signed by their King in a disgraceful manner condemned as Class A War Criminal before the international community:-PosDam Declaration with British prime inister Churchill's and US's Roosevelt's and Truman's and other world heads's signatures respectively. And further go to Japan's "Instrument of Surrender" signed in 1945.
Japan should not insist their private treaty with US to illegally to rob China in a stealth shameful manner while China had just been ransacke's islands d by 9 powers and facing vigorous civil war!
Unscrupulous Japanese!
I was in Beijing during the Chinese protests about these islands. The government organized these protests, which are the only type permitted by law. It was disgusting and shameful propaganda. The Chinese government just want money. A taxi driver in Beijing told me historically the islands were Japanese of his own accord. I didn't start that conversation or offer any opinion of my own. Anyone who is discussing this under the context of nationalism or higher order politics is trying to polish the turd that is greed.
thw west pretty much got its colonisation business out of africa in the 70's.
it's high time for japan to get out of ryukyus islands now. ryukyus independence is a must if japn still wants to survive on earth as a nation.
the us wants to use its vassal japan on diaoyu island to play up unrest in east asia. japan wants to seize this opportunity to its own advantage by trying to break loose some restrictions placed on japan's collar by ww2 allies victors.
but japns government led by mr abe is taking americans as stupid fools by trying to shake off the us occupation and control of japan. mr abe is in for a complete surprise. the us is no fool and is not about to let go japan for any minute.
the wish to have an independent and free nationhood for japan is dashed in bubbles one more time. so sad for japan albeit it deserved to be so treated.
Lol BWAHAHAHA
I find your "STORY" about the Chinese taxi driver saying that Diaoyu is Japanese --- hard to believe
COME on ,please.... anybody can claim that he was in Beijing and had heard some taxi driver saying this or that
THE ONLY way that you can acertain how the Chinese people feel ----is to conduct a proper survey
Otherwise --- you are just making up a fairy -tale ----and based on the saying of one Taxi-driver----who may not even exist, except in your imagination
Dear wudang
Tell me a way that one can conduct a non-government censored survey in mainland China? Your statement is ridiculous.
By the way, I spend a lot of time in China as my wife is Chinese.
I notice that most anti-China posters will claim that his wife is a Chinese
Tell me another
No single Chinese'sprotest was organized by the CCP government.
1.3 billions Chinese are very angry to Japan's criminal mentality, they talk too much.
See what a sane human soul talks:-
Please review this article from a Japanese Professor:
Japanese Militarism &
Diaoyutai (Senkaku) Island
- A Japanese Historian's View
by Kiyoshi Inoue
Professor of History department, Kyoto University, Japan
"Proceeding from the Japanese people stand of opposition to militarism, one should reject the name Senkaku Islands, which was adopted by Japanese Militarism after seizing them from China. Use the only correct name in history, namely, the Tiaoyu (Diaoyutai) Island"
----------- Japanese historian Kiyoshi Inoue. For more info, refer to his 278 pages book "Senkaku Retto".
In June 2004, another Japanese professor Tadayoshi Murata of Yokohama National University, published "Senkaku Islands vs the Diaoyu Islands Dispute" (some info is here) and supports that "Since the Ming Dynasty, Chinese maps and documents of many kinds marked Diaoyu Islands, Huangwei Islands, Chiwei Islands as being lying within the territory of China" . What does the view of some Japanese scholars tell us ? . Small islands – Big problem: Senkaku/Diaoyu
Japan's false claim of its purported "discovery in 1884" of the Diaoyu Islands as uninhibited isles contradicts with the navigation map in its own 1783 historical document, Sankoku Tsuran Zusetsu, published by prominent scholar Hayashi Shihei clearly stating the area a part of China.
Professor Murata said, "We tend to take the opinion of the government, political parties and media as being the correct views and accept them readily; however, those opinions do not necessarily represent the truth. To us scholars, what is important is what is real, what is true, not the national interest; over this point, political parties and media have the same problem."
The islands which are being called the Senkaku Islands in Japan and to which the Japanese Government claims title have historically been definitely China's territory. As the victor in the 1894-95 war with Ching (China), Japan seized these islands along with Taiwan and the Penghu Islands and incorporated them into Okinawa Prefecture as Japanese territory. The Cairo Declaration jointly issued by China, the United States and British during World War II stipulates the return to China by Japan of all the territory she had stolen from China during and after the Japan-Ching war, including Taiwan and Manchuria. The Potsdam Proclamation issued by the allies stipulates that Japan must carry out the clauses of the Cairo Declaration. These islands have been automatically reverted to China as its territory just as Taiwan has been automatically returned to China from the time Japan unconditionally accepted the Cairo Declaration and the Posdam Proclamation and surrendered to the allies including China. It follows that these islands are territory of the People's Republic of China, the only authority over the entire China.
You are not debating or offering any opinion, just making accusations. I believe you are an internet troll and as such I will feed you no further.
I don't think a taxi driver in Beijing can tell "historically" the islands were Japan's based on his knowledge.
I started getting familiar with all the news about the disputed islands since 1971 (not until quarter century afterwards did people in Mainland China paying attention to the issue).
But I would still call those islands as "disputed" islands since all sides can cite some evidence to justify their claims.
If the issue is so clear-cut that the islands must be either Japan's or China's or Taiwan's, then U.S. would not hesitate to call the spade a spade since it knows the islands better than anyone else because it had administered them between 1945-1971.
It seems as if the story u told was just directed by yourself.I don't think anyone in our country will say something like that,especially the taxi drivers in Beijing , who are regard as the most ethnic persons in China.Sorry for your joke.
Let Tibet and Uighur be independent first, boy.
Boy, let Taiwan and Hongkong be independent first.
You are kidding, boy.
Most of the protesters were bussed by the police to the event places.
Did you not watch TV those secenes?
It is a well known fact in all the world except PRC.
Living in a prison country is not easy, boy.
Boy, Taiwan and Hongkong will be independent soon.
CCP cannot dictate those free people.
They do not think they are Chinese.
They are ashamed of being called Chinese.
They are shamed of being mixed up with the Chinese in the prison country.
They think they are free Taiwanese and Hongkongers.
You have a very bad habit.
You do not trust anyone but the CCP and fanatic colleagues.
You should be sincere sometiems.
There are billions of people who might have different opinions from yours. It is just insane to think that there in only one opinion in China.
And your atitude toward a taxi driver does not win respect from others.
What do you think you are!
Son, there is full electronic/ printed media coverage of those event. The police role is just to manage, facilitate and arrest law-offenders!
Don't be mislead by your biased media! Sorry to learn that you can't access the truth/fact.
Son, you are mixing myth and reality up again and again!? Poor boy, grow up!
HK, Taiwan may have something different in their brought up, but definitely there must be one thing in common, facing Japanese bully, they would not only beat them one by one, but also line up as a team together! Chinese are invincible when fighting Japnese in 21st century!
It seems as if u were crazy.Yor are just clicking,clicking,clicking and replying to everyone who are against your opinion.I thought yourmust be a crazy otaku out of the real sociey, ahaha..It's useless to try to make your understand the others in the real society, and i won't reply to u any more.
sounds like typical chinese threat whose going to do it? you!!? lol
Obviously, the writer of this article chooses to ignore the historical facts defined in Cairo Declaration and PosDam Declaration with British prime inister Churchill's and US's Roosevelt's and Truman's and other world heads's signatures respectively. And further go to Japan's "Instrument of Surrender" signed in 1945. The San Francisco Treaty (TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN) signed in 1951 has been an illegal treaty dealing with Chinese territory without China's participation or signature. It's very much like a deal between a thief and a corruptive policeman. If the whole world chooses to ignore the legal documents respected by UN and its members, there is no way to talk about justice and civilization in the world any longer.
Not only has the writer of this article chose to ignore the historical facts, but he even ignores the recent and present facts.
What are the recent fact?
First, Japan announced the nationalisation of the Diaoyu islands and said it would buy it from an unknown private person. The island does not belong to any private person, Japanese or non-Japanese. Why does the writer of this article not point this fact out.
Second, China has invited Japan to sit down and talk. Japan has repeatedly refused this peaceful invitation but chose a more militaristic attitude. The writer of this article does not point this out.
Third, as if out of the blue, the US suddenly announces that it would protect the Diaoyu islands, as if they belong to the US. The writer of this article fails to point this war-like American attotude.
Fourth, the Diayu islands conflict falls in the mids of the great "Pivot to Asia Policy" announced everywhere by the American Administration. Yet, the writer of this article fails to connect this policy with the persistent noise made by the Japanese.
Fifth, there is no doubt that the objective of the Pivot to Asia policy was to isolate, contain and encircle China and the Japanese aggressive attitude is one component of the strategy. Yet the writer of this article does not point it out.
Sixth, the writer of this article calls the World, including the US, to warn China. Yet, when we compare the foreign policies of China and the US, we observe that China has not invaded or bombed any foreign country whereas the US has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and has bombed Libya. And none of these countries was attacking the US, none was a threat to the US, none was fighting the US and none of them wanted to fight the US. Despite this, the US forces have killed and tortured millions of their inhabitants. Who needs to be warned? The writer of this article chooses China to be warned instead of the US. And why should China be warned? Is it because China simply wants to protect its territorial integrity?
I don't think that China objected when the USA went to war with Japan in 1945 did it? Did you object when they bombed Nagasaki ? At that time Japan basically controlled China and the whole of SE Asia. Had the USA not intervened, all of China would be Japanese, not only the Senkaku islands. But of course none of this is in the Chinese textbooks. The glorious Communist did all on their own LOL.
Now that China has risen, thanks to the west, it seeks to bite the hand that saved it. Not remembering the unbelievable ugliness of war. The current arrogance of the Chinese is quite stunning. Having the USA coming to the defence of Japan was not in the plans was it? Even though they are bound by law. Testing the limits are you? Trying to see the US commitment to its allies?
China's delicate position is only based on the west's wealth and ingenuity. The west can manufacture it stuff anywhere. China is becoming too expensive anyway. Keep pushing and you will see what is left of China's economy once the west cuts you off.
If Japan had conquered China, it would have govern it for a century or two. After that, the Chinese would have taken over the control of the country and the Japanese would have become one of the 56 ethnic minority groups in China. At the same time, China would have been enlarged by the addition of Japan and any other countries that it would have been controlling.
If you knew the history of China, you whould have observed that this was the fate all all the conquerors of China including the Khitans, the Jurchens, the mongols and the Manchus.
The Machus conquered and rule China for three centuries; who are they now? A minority ethnic group in China and their former country (today's Lioaning, Jilin and Heilongjiang) are all parts of China.
There is no doubt that the Americans beat the Japanese in the Second World War, but this does not mean that China must become one of its vassal countries like Japan.
China is not arrogant and it is not testing the limit of any country. It just is and will be the first country in the World. As for ingenuity, China is surpassing other countries in many fields including high speed rail technology, space technology, etc. China is not in a delicate situation; it has a firm base unlike other countries which are stressed and torn by mountains of debts and declining economies.
Simple analogy for easy understanding!
"If Japan had conquered China, it would have govern it for a century or two. After that, the Chinese would have taken over the control of the country and the Japanese would have become one of the 56 ethnic minority groups in China. At the same time, China would have been enlarged by the addition of Japan and any other countries that it would have been controlling."
its simplistic understanding of history. First off the Japanese population was 80 Million in 1940, compared to 500 Million for China. How many Manchus ere there 5 Million. With mass education and communication, you can get a population speaking Nipponese in 3 generations. There is a huge difference between the Mongols/Manchus vs Japan. Japan in 1940 was technological superior to China in almost every way. From the military, life expectancy, adult literacy. The reason why Japan developed so quickly was its literacy rate. During the beginning of Meiji period male literacy was 50%. It almost doubled during the Meiji period. In 1949, China's male literacy was 30%.
Japan never even came close to conquer China.
During the 14-year war (1931-1945) with China, Japan's troops never even attempted once to capture the wartime capital of China -- Chongqing, or maneuvred close to the base of CCP -- Yanan.
The closest call was in 1944 when Japan invaded the scenic Guilin and occupied the railway all the way from Beijing to Guangzhou.
In fact, it was rumored that both Chiang and Mao had the same reaction after they heard the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941 -- they were both elated -- and starting then, their troops were more eager to fight with each other than with the Japanese.
The biggest mistake of Japan in WWII is that they should not tie up themselves in China. They should invade Siberia after Stalin mobilized all the Red Army westward for the defense of Moscow and Stalingrad.
But the problem is that the Kwantung Army were scared out of hell from the defeat at Nomonhan by Zhukov in 1939.
Why couldn't Japan conquer China in a 14-year war while Germany could finish France in months (China didn't have the Maginot Line nor tanks nor submarines like the French army had)?
One of the principal reasons is: In comparison with the Red Army and the Wehrmacht, Japan only had a subpar military force in WWII.
Take the battle of Nomonhan for instance. The Red Army generals had gone thru a great purge in 1938 when many talented generals were executed of no reason but only suspected by Stalin. However, it could still deal a decisive blow to the Kwantung Army in 1939 and forced Japan to adopt the "Southward" policy (invading SE Asia by launching the Pearl Harbor attack first).
In fact, the overwhelming Soviet T-45 tank dwarfed its Japanese counterparts. Why were the Japanese tanks made smaller? Because if they were made too big, they could not go thru the narrow railroad tunnels of Honshu.
Had they the Americans not start a war with Japan. eventually they would have. Its surprising the Japanese had lasted that long fighting a two front war, with countries who's population exceed theirs by several times.
The problem is that those hot-heads like Tojo and Hilter in both Japan and Germany never stopped their ambition and waged two-front wars to fantasize that they could conquer the world!
Moreover, their fatal mistakes were: When Hilter waged the "Operation Barbarossa", Japan was not informed beforehand. And when Japan waged the attack on Pearl Harbor, Germany was also not told beforehand.
So when Germany didn't need an adversary of U.S. in addition to UK and USSR, Japan dragged U.S. in. When Hilter badly needed Japan's assistance when his forced retreated from the Eastern Front, the Kwantung Army sat idle.
The Axis countries lost because Tokyo and Berlin lacked shared objective.
Some Japanese generals, i.e. Kanji Ishihara, had clear understanding and advocated for Japan's ambition stopping at Manchukuo. But I guess countries, like human beings, never stopped from greediness.
Actually the island dispute would not lead to real war between China and Japan.
Another move by the new Prime Minister Abe -- BOJ's version of "unlimited quantitative easing" will definitely lead to an all-out economic war between Japan and China and other countries.
If Japan's Yen falls under 110, most likely Yen at that level will hurt China's export (South Korea's export will have suffered tremendously if Seoul does not engage in sympathetic devaluation).
haha ewakorn you here, you are most welcomed here to fight bismarck888, he dares to say we were going to speak nippones, that's quite insulting, in fact it's far more insulting to me than the mention of the rape of nanjing!!
"its simplistic understanding of history. First off the Japanese population was 80 Million in 1940, compared to 500 Million for China. How many Manchus ere there 5 Million. With mass education and communication, you can get a population speaking Nipponese in 3 generations. There is a huge difference between the Mongols/Manchus vs Japan. Japan in 1940 was technological superior to China in almost every way. From the military, life expectancy, adult literacy. The reason why Japan developed so quickly was its literacy rate. During the beginning of Meiji period male literacy was 50%. It almost doubled during the Meiji period. In 1949, China's male literacy was 30%."
first you have to conquer the nation then to do the education of nippoese right? I wonder why the older colony masters like the brits went back home from India, after 300 years they still couldn't educate the whole population of India to speak English, and the other colony masters like Dutch etc also went home, perhaps it's quite an unfashionable thing to colonize a foreign nation because of the rising of nationalism worldwide, but the japs didn't know that because they were just stupid, they couldn't get rid of commies and kmt in China alone and they even dared to go for other asean nations, as for the comparison of the nations so let start from Vietnam vs US, Afgghnistan vs US, North Korean vs US, I guess they are all speak English now, lol
Actually the Japanese occupation of China during WWII was far from complete and thorough as compared with Nazi's occupation of France.
Other than the Northeastern provinces (Manchuria), in almost province there were KMT forces and CCP guerrilla forces that tackled with the Japanese troops during all those years. Japan's military could just occupy some points (major cities) and lines (some railroads) during those years. The rural areas were dominated by CCP while the second-tier cities were under the control of KMT.
When the U.S. planes bombed Tokyo for the first time in 1942, their pilots were ordered to land on the eastern seaboard of China after they had completed their mission. But Japan had already occupied China's eastern provinces since late 1937, so why would U.S. command ask those pilots to land there? Because those lands were free from Japan's control. During most of the war years, the Japanese occupation was sketchy and sparse in China.
Did the Allied Command ever dare ask their pilots to land on France before D-Day?
If U.S. did not participate in WWII, most likely China could not win the war, but neither could Japan win. Probably the war would drag on for decades until one side -- most likely Japan -- was exhausted.
too much drama too little truth. you not there in 1945 you .just parrot lies only people in china know lol
too much drama too little truth. you not there in 1945 you .just parrot lies only people in china know lol
Have you heard of Pearl Harbour? The USA had to intervene since it was getting bombed by the Japanese. Just to say, China can make US bankrupt in a second because of the federal debt and we will see what is left of western economy
Have you heard of Pearl Harbour? The USA had to intervene since it was getting bombed by the Japanese. Just to say, China can make US bankrupt in a second because of the federal debt and we will see what is left of western economy
Have you heard of Pearl Harbour? The USA had to intervene since it was getting bombed by the Japanese. Just to say, China can make US bankrupt in a second because of the federal debt and we will see what is left of western economy
Have you heard of Pearl Harbour? The USA had to intervene since it was getting bombed by the Japanese. Just to say, China can make US bankrupt in a second because of the federal debt and we will see what is left of western economy
Have you heard of Pearl Harbour? The USA had to intervene since it was getting bombed by the Japanese. Just to say, China can make US bankrupt in a second because of the federal debt and we will see what is left of western economy
Have you heard of Pearl Harbour? The USA had to intervene since it was getting bombed by the Japanese. Just to say, China can make US bankrupt in a second because of the federal debt and we will see what is left of western economy
Have you heard of Pearl Harbour? The USA had to intervene since it was getting bombed by the Japanese. Just to say, China can make US bankrupt in a second because of the federal debt and we will see what is left of western economy
Have you heard of Pearl Harbour? The USA had to intervene since it was getting bombed by the Japanese. Just to say, China can make US bankrupt in a second because of the federal debt and we will see what is left of western economy
Have you heard of Pearl Harbour? The USA had to intervene since it was getting bombed by the Japanese. Just to say, China can make US bankrupt in a second because of the federal debt and we will see what is left of western economy
Have you heard of Pearl Harbour? The USA had to intervene since it was getting bombed by the Japanese. Just to say, China can make US bankrupt in a second because of the federal debt and we will see what is left of western economy
It's interesting how Americans become jittery and angry when China makes valid, peaceful claims to territory when it has attacked countries in the Middle East. It is time for Americans to open their eyes and understand that the world will cease to revolve around them.
It's interesting how Americans become jittery and angry when China makes valid, peaceful claims to territory when it has attacked countries in the Middle East. It is time for Americans to open their eyes and understand that the world will cease to revolve around them.
It's interesting how Americans become jittery and angry when China makes valid, peaceful claims to territory when it has attacked countries in the Middle East. It is time for Americans to open their eyes and understand that the world will cease to revolve around them.
It's interesting how Americans become jittery and angry when China makes valid, peaceful claims to territory when it has attacked countries in the Middle East. It is time for Americans to open their eyes and understand that the world will cease to revolve around them.
Big talk, no action.
These countries will NOT go to war again; too much to loose!
Govt that are responsible will try their best to settle differences through peaceful means before going to war
ONLY warlike inferior cultures will try to find any excuses --- and I mean any excuses, --- to go to war, and kill , kill, kill...
"Oh---I say, old chap=== what a loverly lovely war.....jolly good show"
In fact,in 1895,the Japan government has already knew the Diaoyus belong to China.What the Japan has claimed now is ironic!
The Diaoyu islands have always belong to China. There is no doubt about it. However, though the Chinese leaders have repeatedly invited Japan to sit down and talk, Japan has refused to do so. And yet the western media claim that China is an aggressive country. What can be more peaceful than to sit down and talk?
The western countries invaded Iraq for no reason at all and the western governments claim that they liberated Iraq. The western armies killed and tortured millions of Iraqis. The western governments claim that it was a peaceful liberation.
The Japanese navy uses water cannons to chase unarmed Taiwanese and Chinese boats, and the Japanese government announces that their planes will fire warning shots against Chinese planes, yet the western media finds that Japan is peaceful and China is aggressive.
The US pivoted to Asia in view of encircling, containing and isolating China. The US set up a new base in Darwin Australia, organised a dozen naval exercises in the Asia Pacific region, sent its Secretary of State and its Defense Secretary to visit all the countries of the region in order to enlust them as its vassal countries, yet the western media tell the world to warn China, including the US.
US's unfriendly guesture is just a reminder to China to strengthen its military power in a bit for counter-strike to discourage the possibility of going into war!?
if Senkaku belog to china then why Japan control them ?lol you are incorrect thinker lol the world loves Japan abd dislikes greedy agressive evil china! Senkaku forever
Well,Japan is just a robber,a theft!
Japan honorable much loved country! china hates her because she wont let china take indisputable ancient territory
Screaming or making threats, short of an actual land invasion into Japan, is not going to make the Japanese apologize. Even if China was to launch a full scale invasion of Japan and occupy Japan, there is a good chance an apology would be difficult. The situation in Japan, to be frank is not really like Germany, but more like Austria. Like Germany and Japan, Austria was occupied, and in fact divided in zones like Germany. Unlike Germany and Japan, Austria never paid compensation to Nazi victims (none at all), saw itself as a victim because it was occupied by Germany - even the allies say the Austrians were the first victims of the Nazi (absurd but true). They even demanded reparations from Germany !!! Some Germans felt the Austrians got away with alot more than Germany did. Far right wing and Neo-Nazi parties are far more prevalent in Austria than Germany. In my opinion, Austria is just as culpable as Germany for the War.
Why did Germany apologize.
1) Denazification campaigns of the Allies. Something they did not really do in Austria. They did not do something similar in Japan.
2) No backlash from the right, because they were concerned with German reunification
Here is an interesting article.
In the article the author explains, why the later policies adopted by the Germans is not a good example for Japan to follow, because it arises from Germany's unique circumstances.
"During the Cold War, West German conservatives (those most likely to oppose apologies) had powerful reasons to keep quiet: both of their two main foreign policy goals—reunifying Germany and continuing to protect West Germany from the Soviet Union—required a clear
denunciation of the Nazi past. West German leaders understood that in order for their allies to overcome serious reservations about German rearmament and reunification, they would need to see that Germany had truly broken with its past. Observers who consider how Germany and Japan have each dealt with the past frequently wonder,
"What is wrong with Japan?" But the puzzle to be explained is not why Japan cannot apologize but why Germany could."
She further writes, Japan should follow the Adenauer model
"If it wants to repair its relations with its neighbors, Japan should draw on the Adenauer model and acknowledge its past violence while focusing on the future. Meanwhile, Japanese leaders should abstain, as they have recently, from visiting the controversial Yasukuni Shrine. As many Japanese moderates have already proposed,veterans could be honored at a new, secular memorial, or national ceremonies could be held at the Chidorigafuchi National Cemetery"
but Japan
"But in keeping with the Adenauer model, Tokyo should avoid gestures that risk polarizing the Japanese public, such as official apologies or resolutions by the Diet.This should reduce
the outbursts of denials and justifications by Japanese conservatives."
Furthermore, she goes and says
"If some prominent Japanese leaders do deny or glorify past violence, their party's leadership should respond with dismissals or other reprimands"
Basically what she is saying is don't apologize all the time, but don't tell lies. In this aspect, China and South Korea should stop demanding for an apology, but focusing their anger when Japan lies about its past.
I give the Austrian example, even with a country sharing the similar language, culture, wartime experiences as Germany, the end result can be different, because of politics.
Thank you for you post.
Make no mistake about it. The Japanese nation owes it to the people of Asia, especially the Koreans and Chinese. To falsify innocence and deny/ignore historical facts from the Japanese side will only prolong the bad feelings from the very people who suffered dearly. And we have seen that the bad feelings have been passed on from the older generation to the next whenever there is a serious dispute between Japan and China.
We know of plentiful of knowledgeable and conscientious and righteous Japanese people, including but not limited to Mr. Yukio Hatoyama. Now, even if the Japanese, as a WHOLE people, deny their previous wrong doings and continue to honor the Japanese criminals against humanity, what should people of conscience do? Do the Japanese wrongdoings/crimes justify the elimination of the whole Japanese people? Of course NOT.
But we must do something to counter the ignorance from some people and malicious evil from some others.
I like your previous idea of displaying the historical facts of Japanese brutal invasion an occupation of China in all airports of China for everyone to see and learn. That was a very nuanced approach.
The problem with a lot of Chinese and Koreans is they they label the majority of Japanese as ignorant about the war, without understanding the actual situation in Japan. The controversy over the textbooks is one example. 99.95% of school boards in Japan use the text books that describe the horrible things the Japanese done, its the 0.05% of school board use the controversial ones. Most Japanese parents will only protest when controversial textbooks are introduced in their district, and for the most part they have been successful. Meaning they don't want their children to grow up hearing lies. The problem is most Japanese don't protest in other school districts that have introduced those books. Nor do they criticize politicians that say stupid things. Don't assume that silence means they agree with the controversial text books, they don't, at least when it comes to their own children.
The problem is the Department of Education, which is dominated by conservatives, allow these books to be distributed. Its up to the local school boards to actually agree to use them, the vast majority of the time they don't.
Everytime China and South Korea protest, it actually does not change the position of the vast majority of school boards, they won't adopt those controversial books anyways. When something like that happens, the sales of books denying the Japanese wartime atrocities go up. Its a good and cheap marketing tactic.
Most Japanese students don't know much about the atrocities, just as many 17-18 year old working class Chinese student don't know about Deng Xiaoping. Even if Japan banned all those controversial textbooks, there is nothing the outside world / even parents can do to tell how much time a Japan student will spend on Japan's invasion of China. If they spend half hour, listing the Nanjing Massacre, 25 Million Dead, will that be enough for you people? Most likely not. Despite all the teachers best intentions, most students will forget. For Japanese educators, the WW2 is a low priority, how can you expect them to know about Nanjing Massacre, when they can barely find Nanjing on a map. Hell, I don't think even your average Chinese high school can locate Nanjing on a map. I am damn sure the vast majority of Taiwanese, Singaporean, Hong Kong, Malaysian Chinese students couldn't find it on a map of China.
First you don't speak for all of Asia or even the Koreans for that matter, you can only gauge what the Japanese have done in China. Is it really any of your business to be concerned about whether the Japanese make an apology to Korea. Chinese media really should not mention what the Japanese done in other countries, particularly Korea. Each country is different. How much do you know about what happened in Korea? As far as I know, the number of deaths during occupation of Korea by Japan prior to WW2 numbers in 10-20K, mostly due to suppression of Korean independence movements. Even during the War, most Koreans died as a result of forced labor in Japan/China. The actual number of people who died in Korea during 1940-1945 is small. even when you add up the deaths due to forced labor its on the low end of deaths during the War as a % of the population, lower than in Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Burma.
The problem is the Koreans want an apology not just for WW2, but more precisely Japanese colonization fomr 1910-1945. The Japanese will never apologize for that. They feel Japanese colonization of Korea was not any worse than what the Europeans did in their colonies. Indonesia suffered far worse under the Dutch, than the Koreans did under the Japanese, even if you include the war. The Europeans only focused on the atrocities committed by the Nazis, they did not go back denouncing Germany's colonial past, WWI.
For the South Korean government probing too much into Japanese occupation is not altogether good for South Korea. Why? Most of the military elite in the ROK in 1950-70s had served in the IJA as officers. In the ROK the current government won't allow people to get carried away with denouncing the Japanese, because often they ended up going after collaborators and their families, many who belong to very powerful conservative families who dominate ROK business and the military. These are the same people were the leaders who led ROK successfully prior to the late 1980s.
Alot of the teaching of history of the Japanese occupation in the ROK is highly politicized. Teachers unions are left wing, and they have indoctrinated school children to be anti-American, pro-North Korean, excessively anti-Japanese.
When the left-wing President Roh Moo-hyun came to office he proposed a law that would confiscate the assets of Japanese collaborators and their descendants. Well when he finished his term, the police launched a probe into corruption, and later he committed suicide. Was it related?
As I said before, if one thinks one can make the Japanese feel more guilty by listing all the crimes they did not just in China, but all across Asia, one is wrong. If the Chinese media (both in the PRC and elsewhere) does that without educating its readers what actually happened in the ROK or elsewhere, then there is no point.
It seems to all of us that you are trying to prove that Japan was right when it invaded so many countries, murdered so many millions people and forced many girls to turn comfort women to their front line soldiers. Don't you think you are trying to lie to yourself?
I never said that Japan was right, I am just saying that the Chinese language media and Chinese posters are approaching the issue in wrong way. I think bringing up what happened in other Asian countries like Korea and SEA is flawed, one should just stick to China. Why?
1) Your knowledge of what happened in those countries is minimal at best.
2) If you bring up Indonesia/Philippines, the Japanese can always says they have moved on, why can't China. So it does you no good to actually bring them up.
3) What happen between Japan and those other countries is really between those countries.
Does China have any right to tell, or as a Chinese person, to tell other countries how they should feel about the Japanese? Not really. Often it can damage China's relations with other countries unnecessarily. Does China do any good by reminding Indonesians what evils the Japanese have done. Indonesians are taught at school about how evil the Japanese were. Every time there is a movie about WW2 in Indonesia, almost always the Japanese are depicted as cruel and brutal. They are also taught about the aid projects, economic ties with Japan after the war.
You can twist and turn your arguments any way you like; however, I personnally, and perhaps others too, think that you are a poor apologist of the horrible crimes committed by the Japanese during the first half of the twentieth century.
Did I apologize for it? No I am just criticizing people peddle lie after lie. You are upset, because you can't come up with silly counter arguments.
Anyone with half a brain will know that what the Japanese did in Korea pales in comparison with what they did in China, its not even close. Some how the Koreans have convinced Chinese like yourself that it actually does. I don't know why?
I am not upset at all. I just pity you for your stupidity.
What you said is true. But remember history is history. If you don't want it to repeat, you'd better tell people the truth and let them remember. No debts shall not be paid back! As we all know a person will harvest what he plants, a country is the same!
you just don't know, the younger generation like me who has never experienced the war just hate japs so much, and you guess what, if the war history is sooo distance from us but because of the island conflict all of us know it now, it's not because of the education, no much of history we learn in school, but just after the conflict we get tons from the internet, then we know more and more about the japs's doing in the past, the recent conflict makes us blood boring, we can afford the japs's no apologies becase china is not longer the china of the past, but japs get the whole younger generation and generation of the hate from china, you guess who will be losing more, tell me, as for some of us can't spot nanjing on the map, why bother, we can just buy a high speed train ticket and a few hours later we are there to work and play, lol (or giggle if you like to know, lol)
Short of invasion, what can China do? Are you going to join the PLA and fight? After spending 2 weeks in the Jungle without a shower, you will smell worse then us, smelly Indians. If you invade Japan, please do it in the winter time.
Its the school system and media. You have to ask yourselves, what have the Japanese do to you personally? Do Japanese factory owners mistreat their workers. Across most of SEA and China, the Japanese have invested, their businessmen/tourist are polite, don't mistreat people. Ask any person running a hotel anywhere in the world, which guest they would like to have more of, its usually the Japanese.
The vast majority Japanese know about Japan's wartime past, but the problem is they won't criticize those who try to whitewash. Some of those right wing agitators are pretty nasty people, and the more polite ones hold powerful positions within the Japanese government/business.
I explained what happened to the ROK left-wing President, the right in ROK went after him for corruption. Its difficult to say if it had anything to do with his attempt to go after the families of Japanese collaborators. But here is an interesting article
"The MB government has reopened the wounds on Jeju by insisting some of the victims were, in fact, communists—and presumably should have been killed then. MB abolished the official commission investigating Korean collaborators during Japanese colonial rule and marginalized others looking into human rights abuses by past dictators"
"One reason for the MB government's attacks on media and revision of history is to cover their new closeness with Japan. For ten years, progressive administrations cultivated ties with China—now Korea's main trading partner. MB seeks to undo that legacy and reorient the country closer to Japan—following in the footsteps of both Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan. Born in Japan where he used the name Akihiro Tsukiyama, MB has personally met every month with the Japanese prime minister. He refuses to tolerate even mild mannered protests against his Japanese friends."
It could be rumors, but this is how some in the left think of the current President of the ROK. Whether in South Korea, Japan, conservatives are powerful. in Japan, and especially South Korea, more than China, dealing with the war, has lot to do with domestic politics. You can't talk about Japanese colonization of Korea, without discussing its internal politics.
I write this so people like you can understand that Japan's legacy in South Korea is complicated. There is a limit to how much the ROK President can push the anti-Japanese button, before they go after him until he commits suicide.
I pity you for your closed mindedness and igorance. The problem is like most people, you only have superficial understanding of issues when it pertains to Japan and other countries. You are mapping China experience on to Korea
I think you don't quite get it.
Actually the Chinese government "appreciates" Japan for not apologizing (or apologizing then rescinding by worshipping at Yasukuni Shrine).
Why? Quite simple.
Because of the weird attitude of Japan, China can then occupy the moral high ground.
So even though Japan had provided huge aid to China, since Japan hadn't apologized (or apologized then rescinded), China is justified to forget about the aid.
So even though the demonstrators (or rioters) shouldn't storm Japanese properties or attack Japanese citizens in China, since Japan hadn't apologized (or apologized then rescinded), China is justified not to indict those rioters.
The analogy between Austria and Japan during WWII is not quite appropriate since the former was the invaded while the latter was the invader (albeit there were a lot of Nazis in Austria).
The analogy should be between Italy and Japan:
(1) Both were invaders;
(2) Both countries were more "evil" than Nazi in certain sense: Fascism started in Italy earlier than Nazism in Germany. Japan started its invasion earlier than Hilter grabbed power.
(3) Both countries kept their original territory more or less intact after WWII;
(4) Both countries were beneficaries of the heavy economic aid from U.S. -- Italy from Marshall Plan and Japan from the Korean War.
Calling Anschluss and invasion is a bit of stretch. The Austrian Nazi Party launched a coup, before the Germans "marched in" Was there any opposition to it? Very little. As we all know, Hitler was Austrian, and in German eyes when they committed the crimes, Austria was a part of Germany.
Most Austrians were indifferent. Many actively supported it. IF Austria was the size of Germany, I am sure the Austrians would get a far amount of the blame also. If it was a victim as you say, why did Adenauer tell the Austrians "If Austria demands reparations we will send Hitler's ashes back to Vienna". The Germans don't consider Austria a victim, and many in Germany feel the Austrians aren't doing enough about their Nazi past.
The Soviets because of politics, let the Austria have independence on condition they remained neutral. No one expected the Soviets to do that at the time. The West was stunned and the West Germans was upset
Its this belief that they were victims, like the Japanese, prevents them from dealing with the Past. That is why they have far right / Neo-Nazi parties in Austria. Jörg Haider, the former leader of the FPO, at one point got into government. Here are some of his choice words
Calling Concentration Camps - Punishment Camps, Called the Waffen SS, brothers of Wehrmacht. The list goes on and on and on.
The reason why the Italians got away with it, because they are bumblers. No one takes them seriously, even though the things Berlusconi says would land him in hot water if he was Japanese/German.
If Hilter had not annexed Austria, no matter how vicious the Nazis in Austria were, they could just persecute their own lots (including the Jews) within Austria.
Judged by the diminishing clout after their downsizing from the demise of Austro-Hungary Empire after WWI, Austria would not be able to invade another country in WWII.
Of course, Austria might become another Axis country like Hungary or Romania if it had not been annexed by Hilter.
Hitler not annexing Austria is like not inviting your family to your wedding. Its unthinkable. To many Germans, the annexation of Austria was the realization of the German nationalist dream to unite all German speaking people. Before 1918, it was impossible, because of Austria still aspired to be a great power in Central Europe and Austria's dislike of the Prussians. When it was an Austrian, Hitler, doing the unifying, and not some Prussian Junker, many the Austrians embraced it with open arms.
yes I will joint the army to fight if japs dare to invade us again, the island conflict opens all the old mounds of the nation, it's soooo powerful to undone all the "nice" things that japs seem to have, there is no real peace between us and them, that's for sure, unless we get back all our lost islands!! as for Koreans, we are not going to expect them to be with us, and other Asean nation, hey they have not territory conflicts with Japs, so what's the comparison and tell us Chinese to move on? Sure we are not going to ask them and Indians to be with us either, it looks like all the nations are happy allies together with the US to fight us, it looks as if we are going to die the next morning, yeah, we are scared , yesh, very!! lol
comparing it to other's crimes and saying "A didn't apologize so B shouldn't" does not justify the wrongdoings done.
I don't know if you would have said this if someone denied that your mother was raped thousands of times and all that the incumbent Japanese government has to say is that these comfort women "never existed."
I don't know if you would be willing to say that this is just a "highly politicized" matter if your father was tortured to not sleep for weeks by hanging him up backwards and pouring water over him constantly or taking his nails out to put pins in the flesh.
What the Germans did to the Jews are not of my personal concern, but I am sensible enough to distinguish who was right and who was wrong in an incident like the holocaust. The incumbent PM Abe and his cabinet denying the Nanjing Massacre or Japan's "innocence" as a war criminal (as had recently been stated by Lawyer Inada), do u really buy all this crap?
C'mon dude. Learn to put yourself in someone else's shoes. I don't know if you are a Japanese who can speak English somewhat fluently (which is a rare sight to see) or a person of other ethnicity who fervently supports Japan as a Otaku, but try to do sth better with your life than trying to argue something that simply cannot be proved right. I feel sorry for your poor soul.
Did I say that what the Japanese did was right? I am just being realistic. Is there need to calling people an Otaku, Japanese or calling people immoral. Even the PM/Emperor himself was to bow down before at the Nanjing Memorial, there will still be deniers that will stir up trouble, rendering such apologies worthless. The writer of the article I referred to is right, there should be no apologies until the Japanese go after the deniers in their own society. The only apology that could have stopped the deniers was an apology from Hirohito, its too late now.
My other points were to illustrate why its not such a good idea for China posters to start highlighting what happened in 1) Korea. I also commented on the domestic politics of the War in Japan, and also Korea. Ewakorn was more cynical that the CPC can hold the moral high ground. I don't actually agree with it, apology makes no difference to the CPC at all. Outside of being a moral issue there are no domestic implications for China. Its not a serious issue. But for Korea its a far bigger deal.
For Korea it would not be a good thing. If the Japanese apologize to Korea, then all those collaborators and their families would have to apologize. They clearly are not victims, definitely benefited from the occupation more than the average Japanese living in Japan. It will turn that last 60+ years of the ROK history on its head. Any Chinese poster silly enough to start mentioning China and Korea in the same sentence and Japanese War crimes should read more Korean history or get his head checked.
China has been acting too aggressive to take Japanese islands. The islands have always been Japanese and there has been no conflicts until the existence of oil was found.
Unfortunately, Chinese people are brainwashed too much by their government and resist to see the truth. Chinese government is using these issues to cover the problem in the country and to divert Chinese people's attention to outside.Chinese people need to wake up and see their government's foul-play games.
China has been acting too aggressive to take Japanese islands. The islands have always been Japanese and there has been no conflicts until the existence of oil was found.
Decades ago, the leaders of the two countries had a compromise in the island dosputes to set aside for the future witty generation to resolve whereas informal protest from Taiwan, PRC & HK are still vigor.
Upon the breaching of the agreement, Japan unilaterally privatizing the island as if there is no dispute to mock the world with the back up of US, China is forced to openly protect their sovereignty of the land with title held with valid historical over thousand years!
Don't mock up fact like their Japanese used to alter the history record to cover their war crime in WW2 to their younger kids!?!
If you were telling truth and if that right, how come China doesn't agree resolving the issue in an international court? If they take the case to an international court, then whatever the outcome is, all sides must accept it. That way, nothing would be left in personal opinions, or personal knowledge of history. All sides would have a fair chance of defending their claim.
Please go through this article from a famous intellitual journal
The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 10, Issue 53, No. 1, December 31, 2012.
Deconstructing Japan's Claim of Sovereignty over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands 9Highting both side argument)
Japan would be unlikely to win the court case from the legal standpoint!
the link is
For your reference!
The Diaoyu islands belong to China. The Japanese do not want to discuss the matter with China. They just use their status of a vassal country of the US to spread false information to deceive the naive and stupid population of the western countries through the ever willing collaboration of the western media.
In Old Testament, two prostitutes who lived in the same house were brought to King Solomon each having given birth and both claiming to be the mother of the same baby boy.
In the story the real mother didn't want to institute the case to the court by giving up her right and pleading, knowing the shrewdness of the King would cut the child in half,....
Sometimes the gambler would like to take a chance whilt the real owner don't dare!?
I never consider the media's article as the only reference and also in this dispute, most of the western media did not took a side. I have not seen many articles taking side. To me, the obvious case was that Japan agreed to go to international court, but China did not. China should have taken the case to the court. Otherwise, everything is just opinions and there is not a fair chance for all sides to present their side of story. In China, media is extremely strongly controlled by government and most of the Chinese people who live outside China would say that. In the modern world, if you believe you are right, any peaceful side would go to court upon disagreements. You cannot just say, it is our islands and no need to go to court. This type of view is not the right approach for a peaceful country.
In the modern world, if you believe you are right, any peaceful side would go to court upon disagreements. You cannot just say, it is our islands and no need to go to court. This type of view is not the right approach for a peaceful country. We are not living in King Solomon's times anymore.
The article I that am referring
and other Japanese Professers expertise in this area do support the notion that the Islands would be on the upper side with the award to China in case resort to Int'l court.
But there are many options other than legal means, power may previl in handling int'l dispute.
You do not see the western media taking side in this dispute because you are from one of the western countries and you are blinded by your naiveté. But the rest of the World and particularly the Chinese see it whenever they read an article on the matter published by a western newspaper or magazine.
Several times, the Chinese leaders have offered the Japanese to sit down and talk and they have so far systematically refused the invitation. Still now, this offer is opened. What is more peaceful than to sit down and talk. Instead, the Japanese use water cannons and threats of warning shots. This is aggressivity. This is warmongering. And yet, you from the western countries, you refuse to see the water cannons, and you pretend not to hear that the Japanese threaten to fire warning shots. It is as if, you from the western countries, are deaf and dump is not worse than that.
[REPOST] Japan (Prime Minister Tanaka or somebody else from the Japanese sode) NEVER agreed to talk about the Senkaku Islands with China. So if you still believe in the existence of "agreement" or "compromise", you are tragically brainwashed by you big brother.
Dengxiaoping made this one-sided remark (postponement logic) when he sat to sign a peace treaty in 1972, and of course rejected by Japan. Japan has been doing so to the Chinese assertion that it "agreed" with Japan to talk later. Sorry, this is wildly untrue. And PM Abe reiterated this stance lately.
"To talk" with the aggressor is just same with yielding to the terrorism, like ceding Sudetenland to Hitler in 1938. It would be against the rule of law, and peace of the world. Civilized world must reject Chinese greed.
1972 -> 1978
Dear Puppet,
As you probably know, Japan is a puppet country like you are a puppet corporation. It means that Japan, like you, does not have an independent mind. Its mind, like yours, is controlled by another country. That other country is the US. The latter is controlling Japan since the end of the Second World War.
China has offered Japan to sit down and talk about the Diaoyu islands. Is this what you call an aggressive act? Then you do not know what is the meaning of aggressivity.
On the other hand, Japan threaten to fire on Chinese planes. This is aggressivity.
You say that the islands have always been Japanese. Well, you are very ignorant or your history starts from the nineteenth century and not earlier. Probably, it is due to your narrow and weak mind that cannot embrace a longer period. This is not unusual if you are of the western stock western people are in general less intelligent than other people. But never mind. You can still drop your bombs on the people of other countries, but do not try to do the same thing with China because you will be obliterated.
The Japanese side will not / should not seek Chinese consent concerning the Senkaku Islands, because historically China NEVER had any LEGAL title over the Senkaku Islands. From the viewpoint of the established principles of the international law, Japanese territorial sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands has been unquestionable for more than a century. And Japan will not / should not sit to talk with China, the aggressor.
So China has never been in a position to talk with Japan about the Senkaku Islands. China can not offer anything, because it never had anything about the Senkaku Islands before, so China need not agree/disagree.
What China needs to do is to stop intruding the airspace and territorial waters of the Senkaku Islands, the Japanese territory. This is necessary for maintaining the peace of the Easter Asian region, and China has already been warned by the U.S.
Decades after the discovery of oil in these little islands, China still try everything possible to stop any informal protest organised by the people themselves HK, Taiwan & CPC, from time to time, not untill the Japan privatizing the island, China raise the restriction then.
It is perfectly proof by action the existence of such agreement between leaders, only Japan is a nation always lack the utmost goodfaith in honor any resolution by taking advantage. That is why Chinese are so angry this time!
Decades after the discovery of oil in these little islands, China still cannot curb its appetite on neighbouring country's land.
What China needs is not economy. It needs to civilize itself to adapt to the rule of law. Creating commotions or manipulating their own brains works only in China; outside China you can never get anything by these methods. The Senkaku Islands never was China's property, just give it up.
"It is perfectly proof by action the existence of such agreement between leaders . . . "
So, what is the "proof"?
Don't lecture the giant with 5000 solid civilization by some people whose ancestors are believed to be short pirates about civilization.
China is ready to resolve the problemby either rational discussion,negotiation, court procedings or by force or anything whatsoever suitable !
War crime country yields at the victim country while they protest their stolen territory and legitimate right was qualified as 'the aggressor is just same with yielding to the terrorism', by Japanese postors, its really fuzzy,shameless and ridiculous!?!
Proof of acceptance is a legal concept here means after the agreement by their leaders, both countries preserve the status quoted situation for decades......and until Japan tried unilaterally privatizing the island with some silly excusess breaching the agreement.......China and its people feel very furious for the action of the shameless Japanese's deed!?!
So, what is the "proof"?
Proof is both sides' "Acceptance by Conduct" to keep the status quo situation for decades! The agreement to protect both sides claimed is void upon Japan unliteral alter the status quo of the islands by unliterally privatizing the islands with fuzzy excuse even 3 year old kids don't believe except the retarded Japanese consider their rational is convincing!? Pathetic race1
The theft cry out loudly for theft!!!!
Q14: The Chinese government claims that in the process of negotiations leading up to the normalization of Japan-China relations in 1972 and the concluding of the bilateral Treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1978, "the leaders of the two reached an important understanding and mutual recognition about shelving the issue of the Senkaku Islands and leaving it for solution in future." How does the Japanese government respond to that?
Japan's position as stated above has been consistent and it is not true that there was an agreement with the Chinese side about "shelving" or "maintaining the status quo" regarding the Senkaku Islands. This is clearly shown in the published record of the Japan-China Summit Meeting held on the occasion of the normalization of bilateral diplomatic relations. Japan has pointed out its position to the Chinese side clearly and time and again.
Both of our views exchanged including Q & A from your MOFA.
The point you are pondering is not crucial importance in our discussion.
The simplified version of my overall arguement are:-
A group of gangsters (Japan) assaulted, raped, manslaughtered & robbed a peace-loving family's (China) including fetched some antique property belonging to the family (Islands) after decade of bullying(WW2).
Another Mafia big brothers in the other side of the Ocean (US) seriously hurt (A-bomb)the gangsters in some of their fights. Mafia felt worry and afraid revenge somedays. And due to some differences in business philosophy (democracy vs communist),
They then united/merged with the gangsters for some common interest and feed/endorsed the antique property from the police custody (UN)secretely transferring to the gangsters as trustee privately (administration right through San Francisco Peace Treaty) without the consent of the property owner (no China's signatory or consent) and the judicial court order ( the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and the surrender terms Japan signed in 1945)while the victim family were in serious hospitalizing conditions (fissured by eight powers & civil war).
From whatsoever code of international judicial system, laws principles or reverse occupancy case law elements, the gangsters should be hardly possible to fulfil such minimum requirment for their claim is void and illegal from the very beginning, the designating trustee of the seized property being obtained through an illegal/unauthorized owner privately ! Any such tranference is unlawful. Their control/administration is incomplete & subject to easy challenges/repudiation!
More detailed version of our legal technicality dissertation & the counter arguement from japan MOFA are accessible from
The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 10, Issue 53, No. 1, December 31, 2012.
Deconstructing Japan's Claim of Sovereignty over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands
Now may be the high time for China readiness to resolve the entangles situation by whatsoever mode China feel fit & appropriate!
Your comment is full of political assertion, which is irrelevant to solve legal issues, in the world outside China.
Because an agreement is a bilateral action, you need to specify the consents made by each side. First of all, you must tell when Japan gave China any kind of consent to talk about the Senkaku Islands later. Also, because this is related to legality, the agreement must have legal grounds. Remember, outside China, shouting political slogans doesn't help.
1. When
2. Where
3. Who made the agreement.
MOFA of Japan explains that such "agreement" NEVER EXISTED, by quoting historical documents.
This is a high level talk (oral contract supported by minutes of both sides base on utmost good faith) verified by the lack of formal conflict with both side tried utmost effort to maintain the status quo for decades (Contract law: element acceptance by action)!
And you know China processed the island for thousand year, long before the birthof UN or any modern system of international laws!
You said bilateral action need mutual consent of parties concern, so how come US (not owner) endorse administrative right (not ownership) unilaterally to the war criminal defeated without the consent of the owner, China. Such arrangement is void and and invalid from the very beginning!
High level talk like that, nobody would dare to be condemned by historians/people to cede their territories to enemy, so no formal record is understandable!
One side said there is oral agreement and the counter side claim the such offer had been rejected orally is hard to verfy!
But circumstances evidence, that such status quo situatuion had been maintained for decades thereafter would be a undeniable/strong evidence to proof existyence of such arrangement!
Japan's mind-set that they are clever to take extra advantage in deny the aforesaid arrangement, but it also give China an golden opportunities to break the deadlock to seize what their ancestors's property back by all means!
Acquisition Through Occupation
Under international law, territories can be acquired through a mode known as occupation when certain conditions are met. The territory, to begin with, must be terra nullius. The acquisition of title over terra nullius must be consolidated through effective occupation, exhibiting both animus and corpus occupandi, that is, the intention to occupy, followed by the actual exercise of sovereign functions.42
In animus occupandi a state shows its intention to occupy through a formal announcement or some other recognizable act/symbol of sovereignty such as planting of a flag.43 An official Cabinet Decision to install a national marker for example would qualify as animus occupandi were the island truly terra nullius. But, as previously discussed, the Cabinet incorporation act cannot be considered official without formal confirmation from the emperor. Imperial Edict No. 13 and the attendant Okinawa publication cannot be counted as imperial approval and official notification when the islands were not specifically named. Further, the Cabinet Act was kept secret for years. Thus whether a secret and possibly unofficial Cabinet resolution is considered sufficient evidence of animus occupandi is open to question. That the Japanese government acted in bad faith seems clear. Certainly, the secretive implementation of animus occupandi deprived China of constructive knowledge and a chance to lodge a formal protest against Japan's action.
MOFA cites in its English-language Questions and Answers section on the Senkaku Islands webpage (Q & A) a number of instances that allegedly fulfill the requirement of corpus occupandi. The "discovery" of Uotsuri-jima (Diaoyu Dao), the largest of the islands, was accredited to Koga Tatsushiro from Fukuoka in 1884. When Koga applied to Okinawa Prefecture for a lease of the islands in 1894, the prefecture turned him down, stating it did not know whether the islands were Japanese territory or not. Koga persisted. He filed another application on June 10, 1895, six days after Japan officially occupied Taiwan (Formosa), which China ceded to Japan in the Shimonoseki Treaty after the first Sino-Japanese War. Koga's timing should be noted. As pointed out in a biography, he attributed Japan's possession of the islands to "the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces." 44 The Ministry of Home Affairs finally approved this application in September of 1896.
Koga was given a 30-year lease without rent to four islands, Uotsuri-jima (Diaoyu Dao), Kuba-jima (Huangwei Yu), Minami-Kojima (Nanxiaodao Dao) and Kita-Kojima (Beixiao Dao). He spent large sums of his own money to develop the islands, and brought over workers from Okinawa to gather albatross feathers and to operate a bonito processing plant on Uotsuri-jima. At its peak, there were more than 100 people working on the islands. In 1926, when the lease expired, the Japanese government sold the four islands to the Koga family for a nominal sum and they became privately owned land. No official record, however, could be found to show that Koga paid property tax on the islands; nor was there a building registration for the bonito processing plant.45 With growing China-Japan tensions, Koga closed his business in the islands in the 1930s. In 1978, the islands were sold for a nominal price of 30 yen per 2.3 square meters to the Kurihara family.46
The Q & A maintains, "[t]he fact that the Meiji Government gave approval concerning the use of the Senkaku Islands to an individual, who in turn was able to openly run these businesses mentioned above based on the approval, demonstrates Japan's valid control over the Islands." 47 This example of Japan's "valid control" provides the proper context to view its recent purchase of three Senkaku islands from a private owner: the purchase could later be adduced as another display of Japan's "valid control." The purchase, however, is a provocative act under international law in the sense that it requires a vigorous response from a China who does not administer these islands if it wishes to maintain its claim. Otherwise China would appear to or be presumed to have acquiesced to Japan's occupation. Thus China's recent series of actions, i.e., diplomatic protest, filing China's maritime chart with the UN and so on, probably constitute no more than is required to keep alive its claim to title.
Acquisition through Prescription
As can be seen from the preceding section, Japan may not have satisfied the initial requirement of terra nullius; nor has it fully met the condition of animus occupandi. Recognizing the claim of title by occupation may not stand however, some Japanese and American scholars and commentators have contended that Japan could have acquired sovereignty under the modality of prescription.
Prescription comes into play when the territory is of unknown, uncertain or questionable ownership. It consists of two distinct requirements. First, the state must show "immemorial possession" of the territory in question to justify the present status quo, i.e., its current occupation or possession.48 Japan certainly fails this bar. Even according to Koga's claim, the "discovery" of the islands occurred in 1884 while Chinese records of the islands date back to the Ming dynasty in the 14th century. The difference in alleged "possession" time from thereon is great between Japan and China.
The second requirement for prescription shown to be the more important in arbitral and judicial decisions, refers to a process of acquisition akin to adverse possession in civil property law. It involves, on the one hand, a period of continuous, peaceful and public display of sovereignty by the adverse possessor state to legitimize a doubtful title. It demands, on the other hand, acquiescence by other interested or affected states, either in the form of a failure to protest or actual recognition of the change of title. 49
It is unclear whether the Japanese government adopts this line of reasoning but elements of the argument appear in MOFA's Q & A webpage. For example, it maintains that "...the contents of these documents (Chinese historical documents) are completely insufficient as evidence to support China's assertion (of sovereignty) when those original documents are examined," 50 implying that China's claim to ownership of the Senkakus' is uncertain. MOFA's Basic View further states, "[t]he Government of China and the Taiwanese authorities only began making their own assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands in the 1970s, when the islands attracted attention after a United Nations agency conducted an academic survey in the autumn of 1968, which indicated the possibility of the existence of petroleum resources in the East China Sea." 51 This last purportedly shows China's prior acquiescence, simultaneously raising questions of motivation for current non-acquiescence.
Conceptually, occupation and prescription, the two modes of acquiring territory, may be distinct but operationally the two overlap and can be applied to the same set of data.52 As modern-day territorial disputes are adjudicated on the merits of competing claims with sovereignty going to the better right to title, Heflin, among others, concludes Japan has the more colorable (plausible) claim.53
That Japan's claim is more colorable is debatable. In civil law, the legal doctrine of adverse possession is highly problematic for a system based presumably on equity and justice. Defined as the acquisition of a legitimate title to land actually owned by another, it requires certain stringent conditions to be met and for the length of time as determined by the statute of limitations.54 Otherwise few rationales could justify a wrongful possession ripening into a legitimate one and a legal transfer of land from owners to non-owners without consent of the former. Therefore, to lessen the chance of a possible miscarriage of justice, the possession must be actual, hostile, open and notorious, exclusive, and continuous for the period of the statute of limitations.55 The requirement of "open and notorious," for example, calls for the possession to be carried out visibly to the owner and others, thus serving notice of the adverse possessor's intent while "actual" possession provides the true owner with legal recourse for trespassing within a period of time. Still, the principle's mere existence may work as an incentive to theft, requiring constant monitoring by the true land owner and for this reason may be unfair.56
As for the principle of prescription, though widely recognized by scholars and included in textbooks as one of the modes of territorial acquisition, it too is of "very doubtful juridical status." 57 Nonetheless, Japan's possible acquisition of the Senkakus through prescription will be evaluated next.
The first question to consider is whether Japan has satisfied the condition of a long, uninterrupted and peaceful display of sovereignty. Only the period between 1895 and 1945 can be counted as one of peaceful display of Japan's sovereignty unchallenged by China. A plausible explanation for China's silence will be considered in the later section on treaties relevant to the dispute. Regardless, the period is probably too short to validate an adverse claim. Japan resumed direct control of the islands again from 1972 to the present, but during this period it has been repeatedly confronted by China whenever attempts were made to exercise acts of sovereignty. Despite considerable efforts, Japan could not persuade the US in 1972 to turn over sovereignty to Japan. For reasons of its reasons, the US government's position was and continues to be that only administrative control of the islands was transferred under the Okinawa Reversion Treaty.
As to the condition of acquiescence, Japan claims that by failing to protest at critical moments, China showed acquiescence. However, MacGibbon points out that "[r]ights which have been acquired in clear conformity with existing law have no need of the doctrine of acquiescence to confirm their validity."58 Only where rights are suspect does the doctrine come into play. Accordingly, "acquiescence should be interpreted restrictively."59 It should be applied to cases where the acquiescing state has constructive knowledge of the prescriptive state's claim. Given the secrecy surrounding Japan's incorporation process, China was denied that constructive knowledge.
MacGibbon discusses another situation where acquiescence cannot be assumed, one in which "the question (of the claim) has been left open by the disputing parties."60 China's tacit agreement with Japan to "shelve" the issue of the Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus falls into such a category. The first recorded instance of this agreement occurred in 1972 during normalization talks between the two countries. Pressed by Tanaka Kakuei, Prime Minister of Japan, on the island issue, Zhou Enlai, Premier of the PRC, said he did not wish to talk about the issue at the time because it posed an obstacle to normalization of relations. According to Chinese records, Tanaka agreed, saying he had to raise the issue because the Japanese public expected it.61 Then in 1978, PRC Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping again talked about shelving the issue, commenting that "[o]ur generation is not wise enough to find a common language on this question. Our next generation will certainly be wiser. They will find a solution acceptable for all."62
In an interview published in October 2012, Professor Yabuki Susumu charged MOFA with excising the minutes of the Zhou-Tanaka exchange from the MOFA website along with Tanaka's solemn apology for Japanese aggression in the Asia-Pacific War.63 But MOFA denies that such an agreement ever existed: "...it is not true that there was an agreement with the Chinese side about 'shelving' or 'maintaining the status quo' regarding the Senkaku Islands." As of December 2012, a translation of the conversations between Zhou and Tanaka and between Deng and Prime Minister Fukuda Takeo was posted on its Q & A webpage presumably to substantiate MOFA's point.64 Assuming the MOFA posting to be a full disclosure, note in the first conversation that it was Tanaka who brought up the subject of Senkakus with Zhou. Were there no controversial issue and no possible dispute, why would Prime Minister Tanaka raise the issue at all? And did not the silence (lack of response) from Fukuda in the 1978 conversation indicate assent or acquiescence? And would Fukuda not have protested immediately if Deng was not summarizing the situation correctly per Japan's reasoning? The tacit agreement to shelve the sovereignty question is surely not a figment of China's imagination. The Deng statement is something scholars have written about approvingly and has been extensively covered in the global media.
Prior to September 2012, both China and Japan had engaged in active dispute management.65 For instance, both governments attempted to limit activists' access to the islands. Japan had not only enacted measures to restrict access but had also not developed or made use of the islands to any great extent. Japan had not, for example, erected any military installation on the islands, a move that would consolidate its control but would surely provoke Chinese countermeasures.66 China, too, had done its part: it "refused to support private sector [the Baodiao or "Defend Diaoyutai" movement] activities." Nor did China condone "fishermen who traveled to Diaoyu Island waters to catch fish," and it also "refrained from conducting maritime surveillance."67 Although the American media and politicians repeatedly blamed Beijing for mobilizing Chinese opinion against Japan on the island dispute, in actuality, for many years, China had officially or unofficially tried to minimize media coverage of the conflict. Further, as Fravel points out, "the Chinese government ha[d] restricted the number, scope and duration of protests against Japan over this issue."68
Thus Japan and China had both abided by this informal agreement until recently, leading the Japan Times to observe that "[p]revious governments under the LDP, which was ousted from power by the DPJ in the 2009 general election, had respected (this) tacit agreement Tokyo allegedly reached with Beijing in the 1970s." 69 One consequence of Japan's current repudiation of the tacit agreement to shelve the Senkaku/Diaoyu Dao issue has been to alert China of the need to match Japan's exercise of state functions, i.e., to conduct regular patrols of the disputed areas to sustain China's claim. Unfortunately, the regular patrolling now is seen by much of the American media and public as evidence of the rise of a more "assertive" or "belligerent" China.
Although Japan does not officially claim the Senkakus under prescription, a closer look into the practical requirements of this mode may provide an explanation for Japan's curious statement that there is no territorial dispute. According to Sharma, the prescribing state which is in control "should not...by its own conduct admit the rival claim of sovereignty of any other state; otherwise it will be precluded or barred from claiming the prescriptive title to sovereignty."70 Admitting China's competing claim may be an obstacle to acquisition by prescription and may, in addition to Japan's unshakable confidence in the righteousness of its own claim based on international law, serve as an impetus to Japan's denial.
To sum up, Japan's claim to sovereignty of the Senkakus is less firmly grounded in international law than it maintains. Nor are international courts necessarily the appropriate venue for resolving a territorial dispute as entangled as that of the Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus. International law demands displays of sovereignty to consolidate a title; further it penalizes the state that appears to acquiesce. Japan's rationalization of its claim on the basis of international law not only provides it with a powerful rhetoric for its assertions, but also with an incentive to make assertions of sovereignty. This could provoke a response in kind from China in a cycle of escalation, leading possibly to armed confrontations in the region.
Aware of this danger, China had in the past made offers of joint development of the area when tensions subsided after a flare-up of the dispute or in a more relaxed atmosphere in which it would not be seen as conceding. Clearly then, China's position is not all about making a unilateral claim to the oil and gas reserves in the seas surrounding Diaoyu Dao.71 It is unfortunate that Japan repeatedly refused such offers for the PRC has an enviable record of settling most of China's fractious border disputes derived from a legacy of Western colonialism. China has even accepted unfavorable agreements for the sake of peaceful neighborly relations.72 Japan probably thinks it has such firm backing from international law that it can ignore China's proactive gestures. But certain precepts of international law seem to have encouraged Japan's bizarre insistence that there is no territorial dispute regarding the Senkakus and its denial of the existence of a tacit agreement with China to shelve the issue.
III Treaties that Japan Claims Govern the Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus Dispute
As evidence to support its claim of sovereignty over the Senkakus, Japan invokes the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) which stipulates disposition of its acquired and annexed territories. Japan rejects the Chinese assertion that the Senkakus were ceded to it in the 1895 Shimonoseki Treaty. Finally it points to the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Treaty for the return of the Senkakus into the sovereign fold of territories that had been temporarily placed under US administration. Together these treaties presumably substantiate Japanese claim to title. Yet none of these specifically addresses the issue. All demand a "treaty interpretation" giving rise to the disputants' claims and counter-claims. Treaties that may be relevant to the dispute will be examined next.
The Treaty of Shimonoseki
In August 1894 the first Sino-Japanese War broke out over control of Korea. A militarily modernizing Japan, seeking to detach Korea from Chinese suzerainty as a tributary state, embarked on its first war of expansion. After defeating China's naval fleet, Japan invaded China in late October of the same year. By November China sued for peace after Japan won a decisive victory at Port Arthur. The war was formally concluded with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed on April 17, 1895. According to Japan:
". . . the Senkaku Islands were neither part of Taiwan nor part of the Pescadores Islands which were ceded to Japan from the Qing Dynasty of China in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty of Shimonoseki which came into effect in May of 1895..." 73
The pertinent portion of Article 2 of the Shimonoseki Treaty states:
China cedes to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty the following territories, together with all fortifications, arsenals, and public property thereon:-
(b) The island of Formosa, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa.74
As there is no specific mention of Diaoyu Dao in this Article, Japan asserts that the island group was not ceded through this Treaty. China maintains otherwise.
The controversy centers on the interpretation of the clause "all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa (Taiwan)" as to whether it includes Diaoyu Dao. Both Beijing and Taipei point to the same historical documents as proof that the island group had been under the jurisdiction of Taiwan during the Qing dynasty, with Taiwan itself incorporated into Chinese territory in 1683. For instance, among others, the same document known as "Annals" in Beijing's reference75 and a "gazetteer" in Taipei's76 is cited to support China's contention.
Local gazetteers (Annals) were an important source of evidence as to what constituted Chinese territories even before the emergence of the island dispute. For example, when Japan invaded Taiwan in the 1874 Taiwan Expedition, purportedly in retaliation for aborigines killing shipwrecked Ryukyuan fishermen, China used local gazetteers to try to convince Japan that Taiwan was not terra nullius per Japan's assertion. Japan, China declared, had in fact invaded Chinese territory.77
China cites the Annals/gazetteer type of historical documents to support the contention that "[f]rom Qing China's perspective, the disputed islands became Japanese territory as a spoil of war and was legalized through the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki."78 These documents lend credence to China's claim that in Chinese usage and common understanding, at the time and also now, the term "appertaining islands" includes Diaoyu Dao since the islands were recorded under Kavalan, Taiwan, in the Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province of 1871 before the start of the first Sino-Japanese War. (See photo below.) Thus China is invoking the cardinal rule per the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of interpreting "in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning (emphasis added) to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context (emphasis added) and in the light of its object and purpose"79 to justify its position, while Japan claims the non-inclusion of the specific name of Diaoyu Dao as its rationale.
Diaoyu Island is recorded under Kavalan, Taiwan, in Revised Gazetteer of Fujian Province (ROC) or Gamalan, Taiwan in the Recompiled General Annals of Fujian (PRC) in 1871. (Source: New York Times, September 19, 2012)
From China's interpretation of this treaty, i.e., that it did cover Diaoyu Dao, may flow a plausible explanation for its silence from 1895-1945. These two factors, treaty interpretation and subsequent silence, cohere to form a plausible explanatory scenario of China's so-called acquiescence. China did not know that Japan had secretly incorporated the islands; it believed that it had ceded the islands after the first Sino-Japanese War and was observing the maxim of pacta sunt servanda, i.e., fulfilling its treaty obligations in good faith without protest.
The fact remains, however, that although Diaoyu Dao was not expressly mentioned in the Shimonoseki Treaty, the Pescadores Group was, with specific geographic boundaries in Article II of the same treaty: "The Pescadores Group, that is to say, all islands lying between the 119th and 120th degrees of longitude east of Greenwich and the 23rd and 24th degrees of north latitude."80 To be sure, Diaoyu Dao cannot be compared with the Pescadores in terms of size or strategic importance to China, and might not have merited a specific mention in 1895. It was, at the time in question, an insignificant group of islands, uninhabited and of limited economic value other than providing rich fishing grounds for the locals' livelihood.
China also maintains that when the Shimonoseki Treaty is considered and interpreted as an integrated whole with other relevant written legal agreements, then Diaoyu Dao should have been returned to China after World War II. The Cairo Declaration states that "...all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China."81 Note that this provision is not particularly careful in outlining specifics; Formosa was written with the controversial "appertaining islands" while the geographical co-ordinates of the Pescadores were not given. Nonetheless the intention to revert the territorial concessions of the Shimonoseki Treaty to China is clear.
The instrument of surrender that Japan signed in 1945 pledges to accept the provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation. This latter not only affirms the terms of the Cairo Declaration but is more specific as to the territorial delimitation of Japan to "the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine."82 These "minor islands" were listed in the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers' Memorandum for the Imperial Japanese Government, No. 677 (SCAPIN-677), dated January 29, 1946. Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus was not on this list of Japanese "minor islands." However, in anticipation of a peace treaty, SCAPIN-677 did insert a caveat stating that "[n]othing in this directive shall be construed as an indication of Allied policy relating to the ultimate determination of the minor islands referred to in Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration."83
The San Francisco Peace Treaty: Article II
Japan relies on the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) as the final arbiter on postwar settlement of its claims and disposition of its acquired and annexed territories. This treaty, it holds, bolsters Japanese claims since:
"...the Senkaku Islands are not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article II of the San Francisco Peace Treaty which came into effect in April 1952 and legally demarcated Japan's territory after World War II."84
The Senkaku islands are indeed not mentioned in Article II (b) which stipulates:
"Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores."85
The intent in the early drafts of the San Francisco Peace Treaty might have been to define the postwar territory of Japan and to codify principles expressed in such prewar agreements as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation. Article II would then have specified the reversion of territories to China which were ceded to Japan through the Shimonoseki Treaty. But the Article as stated omitted the controversial phrase "together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa (Taiwan)." The careful geographic delineation of the Pescadores group was also missing. Finally, the recipient of those renounced territories, China, was not named and left intentionally unspecified. Why?
In 1949, China's civil war ended with the People's Republic of China (PRC) establishing firm control over mainland China and the Republic of China (ROC) retreating to Taiwan and its outlying islands. Nations were divided in their recognition of the legitimate representative government of China. The United Kingdom (UK) established diplomatic relations with the PRC in January of 1950 while the US and many of its allies stood by the ROC at that time.
Japanese Surrender Document (Source: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/japanese_surrender_d...)
Oil painting by Chen Jian. Surrender Ceremony in Nanjing. Japanese representatives offer the surrender document and their swords to the Chinese representative, September 9, 1949 (Source: http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2005-05-28/19126776619.shtml)
Also by 1949, the US with UK backing began to assume control and eventually came to monopolize the preparation of the peace treaty. When Wellington Koo, the ROC's ambassador to Washington, learned of the SFPT terms, he strenuously objected to the fact that no reparations were demanded of Japan. More importantly, he insisted that Taiwan should be ceded back to China, as the ROC at the time was recognized by the UN as representing all of China, rather than leaving its sovereignty status indeterminate.86 John Foster Dulles, who oversaw the drafting and the passage of the SFPT, rejected Koo's demand. Dulles reasoned that with the Korean War in progress from June 1950 and the dispatch of the US Seventh Fleet to Taiwan, the use of the fleet in the area might then "constitute an interference in China's internal problems."87 Koo indicated that the ROC could not accept the terms, but would not publicly remonstrate against the treaty. Neither the ROC nor the PRC was represented at the conference, and neither was among the signatories of the SFPT.
When a treaty itself gives no indication as to the disposition of a contested territory, its drafts may be used as a supplemental means for interpretation per the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (VCLT).88 In the first available draft of the SFPT dated March 19, 1947, the territorial limits of Japan were defined as "those existing on January 1, 1894, subject to the modifications set forth in Articles 2, 3..."89 Had the phrasing survived the re-drafting process, the implication for the disposition of Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus would be clear since the Cabinet Decision to incorporate took place on January 14, 1895. In the same draft, however, a clause reversing the Shimonoseki Treaty provided a list of adjacent minor islands to Taiwan and the Pescadores without naming Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus.90 Accordingly, some scholars conclude on examination of this draft that the US had not intended to return Diaoyu Dao to China.
However, if the aforementioned SCAPIN-677 is taken into account, this view is not necessarily borne out because Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus was not on the list of islands SCAP considered to be under Japanese sovereignty. Alternatively, the ambiguity and conflict in the two provisions of the same draft may be attributed to the drafters' lack of knowledge about the geography of the area and the insignificance of the Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus at the time, as well as ignorance of the Chinese historical claim and Japan's secret incorporation of the Senkakus. Thus nothing conclusive can be gathered from this draft. In later drafts Japanese territory was delimited to the four main islands and other unspecified minor islands as expressed in the Potsdam Proclamation, but again, none of those provisions survived with the changing geopolitical climate and the onset of the Cold War.
The San Francisco Peace Treaty: Article III
Japan also refers to Article III of the San Francisco Peace Treaty which stipulates:
"Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29 deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters."91
Consequently Japan concludes:
"...[t]he Senkaku Islands were placed under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, in accordance with Article III of the said treaty..."92
Like Article II, Article III is silent on the Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus. Ambiguity also surrounds the interpretation of the phrase "Nansei Shoto (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands)." Taira Koji observes that two possible meanings can be attached to the usage of the above-mentioned phrase. Geographically, and historically, "Nansei Shoto" refers to island groups such as the Tokara, the Amami, the Okinawa and the Yaeyama, but does not include the Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus or the Daito Islands. Administratively, the islands were attached to Okinawa Prefecture shortly after incorporation. Therefore "[t]he absence of mention of the Senkaku Islands in the Treaty definition of Nansei Shoto is a geographically correct usage of the term." 93 Thus the application of the "ordinary meaning" to this phrase per Article 31 (1) of the VCLT arguably implies Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus is not part of the territory to be placed under US administration.
However, Article 31 (3a) of the VCLT also permits "any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions" to be taken into account. The subsequent agreement in this case is the proclamation of the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyus (USCAR) No. 27 issued on December 25, 1953. It defines the geographic boundaries of the area under US administration per Article III of the SFPT, with Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus located within the defined area of US control.94 Thus USCAR 27 could be said to have clarified the phrase of "Nansei Shoto (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands)," indicating it should be interpreted in an administrative sense. However, being a declaration drawn subsequent to the treaty, it does not have the same weight as a treaty provision, especially when the reason or motivation for the inclusion of Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus by the USCAR 27 is challenged. It follows that the "administrative" interpretation of Article 3 is by no means definitive.
While the terms of the treaty were generous to Japan, the SFPT was drafted so as to reflect the geopolitical and strategic interests of the US with little attention devoted to the problem of settling territorial disputes of rival claimants in Asia. Therefore a review of the treaty shows that none of its provisions includes an explicit reference to Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus. Despite Japan's statement that "[t]he facts outlined herein (Articles II & III in SFPT) clearly indicate the status of the Senkaku Islands being part of the territory of Japan," these clauses have no implication for the sovereignty of the islands. Apart from considerations of whether the treaty was just,95 and whether it "served as a sweetener for the less equitable [US-Japan] security treaty" that followed,96 the SFPT, in essence, sowed the seeds of Japan's postwar territorial disputes, roiling relations with its neighbors and jeopardizing the peace and security of the region.
The San Francisco Peace Treaty, 1951, signed by 48 nations. China was not one of the signatories. (Source: http://cdn.dipity.com/uploads/events/7d7968b16dd64715e1d08893f2fd90f6_1M...)
Finally, Japan's treaty interpretation is clearly inconsistent and self-serving. First, it asserts that as an administrative territory of Nansei Shoto Islands, the Senkakus should be understood to be included in Article III of the SFPT while denying that Diaoyu Dao, administered by Taiwan, should be recognized as a territory ceded in the phrase "islands appertaining to Formosa" of the Shimonoseki Treaty. Second, it argues for opposing conclusions based on the same fact, i.e., non-inclusion of Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus in treaty language. Without being mentioned, Diaoyu Dao is not ceded to Japan per the Shimonoseki Treaty; at the same time without express inclusion, the Senkakus' sovereignty is validated through the SFPT.
Protest from Beijing and Taipei
In the Basic View, Japan goes on to say:
"The fact that China expressed no objection to the status of the Islands being under the administration of the United States under Article III of the San Francisco Peace Treaty clearly indicates that China did not consider the Senkaku Islands as part of Taiwan."97
The statement is flawed, first, because neither the PRC nor the ROC was a signatory to the Treaty, and second, the SFPT was silent on the status of Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus. On both counts it is unreasonable to expect either Beijing or Taipei to raise a specific objection as to the island group's disposal.
In fact Zhou Enlai, Premier of the PRC, objected to the whole treaty. In a statement published on August 16, 1951, he declared that the SFPT violated the spirit and letter of the United Nations Declaration of January 1, 1942, which states, "[e]ach Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies."98 "China," Zhou stated, "reserves [the] right to demand reparations from Japan and would refuse to recognize the treaty."99 But the PRC did not have diplomatic relations with either the US or Japan at the time, and it was locked in combat with the US in the Korean War. Its protest went unheeded.
The United Nations Declaration, January 1, 1942, stating "Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies." (Source: http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/charter/history/declaration.shtml)
As noted in the aforementioned Koo-Dulles exchange, the ROC kept silent about its rejection of the SFPT, being dependent at the time on the US for diplomatic recognition and economic and military assistance. In addition, while it may have recognized the SFPT in the 1952 Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, Taipei did not consider the SFPT to have any bearing on the question of sovereignty of either Diaoyu Dao or any of the islands placed under US administration pursuant to Article III of the SFPT. When it realized too late this mistake in November 1953, Taipei raised diplomatic objections to the American decision to "return" the Amami islands to Japan.100 However, over Taipei's objections, the US returned these islands as a "Christmas present" in December 1953.
The Okinawa Reversion Treaty
Japan goes on to state in the Basic View that:
"...[the Senkaku Islands] were included in the areas whose administrative rights were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, which came into force in May 1972."101
IV Effective Possession/Control Revisited
As the preceding discussion demonstrates, Japan cannot firmly establish grounds for the claim to the Senkakus based on modalities of territorial acquisition or principles of treaty interpretation in international law.In fact, while it declares international law to be on its side, there is much to show that Japan does not adhere to the bedrock principle of applying international law in good faith, tailoring, instead, the interpretation of legal concepts and doctrines to fit its needs and to bolster its position.In this section, pertinent cases of adjudicated international territorial disputes will be analyzed to determine whether Japan's claim has stronger support from case law.115
Justifications for territorial claims before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) can generally be grouped into categories, with "effective control" being one Sumner finds in an overview to be highly determinative in judicial decisions.116 Most scholars too believe effective control to be "...the shibboleth - indeed, the sine qua non - of a strong territorial claim."117 Analyzing island disputes only, Heflin arrives at a similar conclusion, i.e. that effective control is not only determinative but may be dispositive in these cases.118 As the concept coincides with and is indistinguishable from the previously discussed concepts of effective occupation and effective possession, the terms effective control, possession and occupation will be used interchangeably in this section.
Japan's claim to "valid control" of the Senkakus begins at the incorporation date of January 14, 1895.This is the date it has chosen to mark the origin of the claim and therefore of the dispute.Whether the ICJ would focus on this "critical date" in a legal sense, in which acts occurring subsequent to the date "will normally be held as devoid of any legal significance,"119 is uncertain. The date, however, conveniently divides the dispute into two distinct periods, namely, pre- and post-January 14, 1895, and an examination of one without the other would be incomplete.
The Permanent Court of International Justice's (PCIJ) decision in a 1933 case most resembling the island dispute in the period leading up to the date of January 14, 1895, is the Eastern Greenland Case.120 Although the case does not involve uninhabited islands, Greenland falls into a class of territories that are barren, inhospitable and not conducive to settlement, in this respect similar to the Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus or the Arctic and Polar regions. In such disputes, much less is required to demonstrate intent to occupy and exercise effective control/possession.
In this Case, both Norway and Denmark claimed sovereignty over Eastern Greenland.Norway occupied the territory following a royal proclamation on July 10, 1931, asserting the territory was terra nullius. It argued that Eastern Greenland lay outside the boundaries of Denmark's other occupied colonies in Greenland. Denmark, on the other hand, maintained it had sovereignty over all of Greenland and that Norway's proclamation was invalid because it violated the legal status quo.Denmark contended that its title up to 1931 was "founded on the peaceful and continuous display of State authority over the island," uncontested by any other state.121
The Court in its deliberations notably established a "critical date" which was determined to be the date of Norway's royal proclamation. At this critical date, the dispute was not one of competing sovereignty claims. Rather as Sharma points out "[i]t was a case where one party was insisting upon a claim to sovereignty over the territory in question, whereas the other party was contending that the disputed territory had always remained 'no man's land'."122
The PCIJ ruled in favor of Denmark. In essence, the Court concluded that Denmark's demonstration of sovereignty over Greenland as a whole for the period preceding the critical date in 1931 was sufficient to establish its valid title to Eastern Greenland.123 In other words, in sparsely settled land sovereignty need not be displayed in every nook and corner of the territory so much as over the territory as a whole. Thus the criterion of effective possession/control was applied and was not set aside by the Court in this case so much as adapted to the conditions of a different environment and circumstance. In inaccessible Greenland, effective occupation was essential but very little display and exercise of state authority was required to satisfy this principle.
Norway's claim that the land was terra nullius did not convince the Court since Norway had made little effort to claim Eastern Greenland prior to the critical date. And although Denmark might not have been in actual and effective control of Eastern Greenland or even Greenland as a whole, Norway had shown even less control, having hardly any activity through different historical periods.124 In the absence of any competing claims up to 1931, one scholar commented that Denmark "succeeded largely by default." 125
Scholars examining arbitral and judicial decisions pertaining to island disputes generally consider the Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus controversy to be a case of competing sovereignty claims. The question follows as to whether this characterization of competing claims is appropriate or whether, like the Eastern Greenland Case, the characterization of the dispute to be a claim of sovereignty versus one of terra nullius is more appropriate. If the latter, then perhaps China has the more colorable claim. For China can furnish evidence of the exercise of state authority over Taiwan, which administered Diaoyu Dao during the pre-January 14, 1895, period; the islands' being administered by Taiwan in turn was arguably established in the aforementioned historical documents of gazetteers/annals. The Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus dispute, however, was not submitted for arbitration shortly after the dispute arose as in the Eastern Greenland Case. The succeeding period from 1895 on, during which Japan has had de facto control of the Senkakus, would have to be evaluated as well for applicable judicial rulings that may provide a better guide for analyzing the dispute.
According to most scholars the most authoritative case law on title creation and preservation can be found in the 1928 Island of Palmas Case.126 In this Case the US and the Netherlands each laid claim to a sparsely inhabited island off the coast of the Philippines. The US claimed it had acquired a historical title through Spain's cession of the island and the Philippines in a treaty after US victory in the Spanish-American War of 1898.Spain, in turn, had discovered the island in the 16th century. The Netherlands, on the other hand, claimed the island on the basis of effective possession and exercises of state functions beginning in 1677 or even earlier.
V Conclusion
Politicians and most media, legal and scholarly commentators in Japan as well as the US and the Anglophone world appear convinced that Japan's claim to the Senkakus is soundly based on international law. They are seemingly unaware of the irony and inconsistency of Japan's stance on this dispute as opposed to its dispute with South Korea over the Takeshima/Dokto islets. In the latter dispute, Japan, in a complete role reversal, denounces South Korea's control over the islets as illegal occupation, while South Korea maintains Dokto is clearly part of its territory. Although Japan has asked South Korea to submit the Takeshima/Dokto dispute to the ICJ, Seoul has refused, claiming that Dokto belongs to Korea under international law. In the dispute with China, however, Japan has not moved to settle the Senkakus/Diaoyu Dao dispute within the ambit of international law. As recently as October 2012, Prime Minister Noda confirmed that Japan has no intention of so doing, insisting that there is no territorial dispute.138
Yet the preceding careful dissection of Japan's claim shows it to have dubious legal standing. Japan's contention that the Senkakus were terra nullius is disingenuous, if not in violation of the cardinal principle of good faith in applying and observing international law. China's silence from 1895 to 1945 cannot be construed to be acquiescence to Japanese ownership, due to its not having constructive knowledge of the Cabinet Decision and the subsequent belief China had ceded the territory in the Shimonoseki Treaty. Further, the concept of acquiescence from 1972 to the present simply does not apply when in addition to strong protests from China, evidence points to the existence of an implicit agreement on both sides in 1972 and again in 1978 to shelve the issue to a later day, despite Japan's current denial of this agreement.
The SFPT has no implication for the disposition of the islands; the US remains neutral as to their sovereignty status. Japan would have retained residual sovereignty when the island group reverted to its administration only if it had acquired legitimate title before reversion. Although the ICJ has shown effective control to be determinative in a number of its rulings, a close scrutiny of Japan's so-called "valid control" reveals it to be no more than transferred administrative control, sustained with the efforts of a third party thus bearing scant resemblance to the concept of effective possession/control in other adjudicated cases. Article 5 of the US-Japan Mutual Security Treaty may have the manifest function of deterring China from the use of force to gain control of the islands. But it also has the latent function of encouraging a disregard for the goals of a secure and stable regional and global order by prolonging the dispute.
Japan may find to its consternation that it is easier to make a claim than to back away from one. China has shown Japan a way out of the imperative to resolve the dispute immediately by offering joint development of the resources in the seas around the Diaoyu Dao/Senkakus. Japan has repeatedly refused. Instead it has chosen to stake its claim on international law, one which this analysis has shown to be based on shaky legal grounds. Moreover, international law concerning territorial disputes does not, as Japan seems to think, provide a predictable or satisfactory framework for resolving the controversy.Case law is too vague to be of help for "there are simply too few cases and too many uncertain variables for the result of any adjudication of sovereignty over the Senkakus to be reliably predicted."139 International law merely prepares Japan to ground its claims "in colorable legal arguments"140; it neither points the way to a viable solution nor fosters a negotiated settlement.Japan's emphatic denial that a dispute ever exists precludes any serious negotiations with China and contradicts its stated commitment to resolve the dispute peacefully.
Reliance on US might to bolster Japan's claim and support its de facto administrative control of the islands is also problematic. Japan seems unaware that its current territorial disputes with China and other countries such as Korea stem mainly from the SFPT, a treaty which encapsulates US postwar hegemonic ambitions in the region with little or no regard for the Asian countries which suffered most from Imperial Japan's militarism. For all its apparent efforts to mediate the current flare-up, the US may actually wish to keep controversy alive. Perpetuating and even stoking the conflict could divert China's attention and energy from its modernization efforts, disrupting its "peaceful" rise to emerge as the main competitor to the US. Confrontation could also assure that Japan remains securely in the US camp, more keenly aware of the need to have a major US military presence on its soil, especially in Okinawa, where most local residents are otherwise opposed to the massive American footprint.
Japan has chosen to stake its claim on international law, one which this analysis has shown to be based on shaky legal grounds.
You forgot your homework.
1. When
2. Where
3. Who made the agreement.
You are insisting Japan agreed to talk about the Senkaku Islands with China, which actually is false. So specify the items above.
1. When
2. Where
3. Who made the agreement.
MOFA of Japan explains that such "agreement" NEVER EXISTED, by quoting historical documents.
I don't have to do my homework, just the Q & A from MOFA you referred already verified the existence of the alleged offer and acceptance regarding the oral agreement. The politicians from both country could not shoulder the blame by their fellow country men to cede in matter related to sovereignty of territory right; whereas the cunning Japanese selected to refuse the admittence of such agreement. Japan feel that they are smart byt any independent experienced judge would find it eeasy to veuify the exsitenence of the oral agreement being agreed upon by their mutual binding restraint afterwards, by 'doctrine of acceptance by action' that both countries maintain status quo without formal dispute ever since for decades not until Japen fail to honor shelfing the dispute by unilateral privatization.
Actually japan never been occupying the Islands in absolute control, see if they atation any Japenese army there, which would be intrepreted as intrusion and declare war to China. !.3 billions Chinese would be their enemy instantly!
"verified the existence of the alleged offer . . . "
So could you tell the world, when and where was it?
You can find the when and where from my previous posting few hours ago!
The existence of the aforesaid do not carry any significant bearing to Japan's claim by 'Acquisition through Prescription' or 'Acquisition Through Occupation' for Japan can't reach the requirement of valid occupancy, but so called administrative right from a illegal owner!?
"Implicit agreement" – It seems this is what you want to insist to EXIST between Japan and China. However, this is not an "agreement". Here again, you are tragically confused between legality and your own desire, just like many other uncivilized Chinese.
1. This word "implicit agreement" which seems to be often used by the Chinese is a very ambiguous concept that however can not be found in the world of legality. In the civilized world, an agreement that has something to do with legal issues can never be implicit, because an agreement must be made by both sides' explicit consent. Whether the agreement will be announced is a different matter. This is inextricably a very eccentric expression to be used in thinking of the international relations. Anyhow, you can't say "implicit agreement" is equal to "agreement", and with this concept you cannot settle any legal dispute.
2. Japan has openly denied the existence of any kind of agreement or consent between Japan and China, without any reservations. And the Chinese government has failed to produce any documents that support the existence of any agreement between Japan and China. So its existence is no more than your presumption, which is not binding for Japan, of course.
3. So from the ambiguity of the concept you rely on, and from the lack of factual evidence of the existence of any "agreement" between Japan and China, I have to conclude that your opinion is based on your own guess (or fantasy) that was injected into your brain by your BIG BROTHER. Wake up.
You are one of the unscrupulous Japanese that bring shame to your country (most of them are good except the politicians) for you wilfully distort and mislead others by mixing up two different concept.
Implicit agreement is the term created by the naive liar which is totally different from oral agreement/contract or written agreement/contract are both vital legal concept in modern Mercantile/Contract Law. Both carry equal validity except oral agreement are sometimes difficult to prove in court directly.
And also this is a very weak link/unessential part in the whole Japanese legal arguement.
In fact, Japan has chosen to stake its claim on international law, one which this analysis has shown to be based on shaky legal grounds.
You already give ample ground to China to play a more proactive role in regain their stolen islands by all means possible.
1.3 billion Chinese are really angry with the Japanese's fuzzy stance & logic.
"implicit agreement"
"oral agreement/contract"
"written agreement/contract"
Contrary to your fantasy, none of above actually exists between Japan and China, concerning the Senkaku Islands. So you are so pointless as your previous posts. What is far worse is you are being possessed by a communist-made fantasy. Although it is hard to believe, the fact is simple; Japan never agreed to talk with China concerning the Senkaku Islands, and will never do so in the future. Just wake up, Chinese, for your own future.
It is what you said as fact. The circumstances proof the existance of the arrangement! This point anyhow is not crucial importance at all. Japan never 100% control of this islands at all!
Japan has chosen to stake its claim on international law, one which this analysis has shown to be based on shaky legal grounds.
"The circumstances proof the existance of the arrangement . . ."
1. Your "existance of the arrangement" is not fact, but pure delusion. Such an "agreement" does not exist in this real world. If you cannot go out of it by yourself, you should see a therapist.
2. An agreement between nations must be explicit. So even in your fantasy, you are running in a wrong direction. Wake up.
It's not wht you or me parle that count!
I already told you this agreement is 'no significant bearing' to decide in the whole argument who own this land.
Anyhow circumstance evidence really tell something which is not strategic importance after all.
Japan have not been actually control and will not be allowed to control the islands in the future!
If you fail to prove the existence of an "agreement between Japan and China to talk about the Senkaku Islands later", you can't insist that Japan is obliged to sit to talk with China, because Japan has its own freedom to reject Chinese political claims. In fact, such consent was never given to China by Japan, and is very unlikely to be given in the future.
To the contrary of your notion, except for the "established customs or principles", "agreement" (e.g. treaties) is the basis of the modern international law, because this civilized world is composed of independent sovereign states, not ruled by a Chinese dictator. Agreement (consent) is always fundamentally important; when you are outside China, you can never evade its importance in demanding something of other nation's sovereign interest. You need to seek Japan's consent to negotiate, and it won't be given to the aggressor, China.
I already told you many time the existence of any agreement is not the hinge oto decide the win/loss of the case! Japan is afraid the admittance of existence of shelving agreement may indirectly proved there is query issue about the ownership of the island!
Anyhow before Japan can legitimately claim sovernity of these islands, Japan need to clarify the following:-
1. Ancient history document kept all over the world already proved China discover and own the islands long befor UN or international laws;
2. Japan's claim by 'Acquisition through Prescription' or 'Acquisition Through Occupation' for Japan can't reach the requirement of valid occupancy;
3. You say International treaty need signatory, thus Cairo Declaration and PosDam Declaration with British prime inister Churchill's and US's Roosevelt's and Truman's and other world heads's signatures respectively. And further go to Japan's "Instrument of Surrender" signed in 1945. The San Francisco Treaty (TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN) signed in 1951 has been an illegal treaty dealing with Chinese territory without China's participation or signature.
4. Japan never before, right now and future won't be possible to full control of the islands;
5. The enforcement of modern international law need to be back up by power; game change right now, china is no loner the sick man some decades ago!
Wake up, boy!
It is not China force Japan to sit down and talk.
It is little Japan playing games to play hard assertively on one hand to beg US, China's neighbour countries to contain.isolate China but in vain while on the other hand sent envoy of series of fomer Japanese premiers to China to beg for talk!
China's stance is absolute & clear from the very beginning without any hesitation. Japan's stupid move of privatizing the islands triggers China's cautious in Japan's cunning/greedy move. China Consider it high time to get back what is robbed by forced when China was sick some decades ago!
Agreement (consent) is always fundamentally important; when you are outside China, you can never evade its importance in demanding something of other nation's sovereign interest.
Excellent statement, when you steal/rob the islands jointly with US from China, agreement (consent) is always fundamentally important: you can never evade its importance in demanding something of other nation's sovereign interest.
Japan is feeling the pressure ---- because China had already presented its Diaoyu Case to the United Nations
Next step=== maybe the ICJ ??
Japan suddenly sees the writings on the wall ......
"the existence of any agreement is not the hinge . . . "
No. You are mistaken, down to the ground. Nobody in this civilized world agrees with you in denying the importance of agreements. You apparently need to be civilized, for the future of China.
Japanese territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands has been unquestionable for more than a century, and without Japan's consent, China cannot do anything, and Japan will never give any consent to the aggressor, China. The civilized world, the world of the rule of law, is obviously on Japan's side. You don't have a friend in Asia.
Waging wars, shouting political slogans, burning down Japanese investments, intentionally intruding Japanese airspace and territorial waters simply make China looks all the more horrible. The more China goes mad, the more neighbouring nations hate you. You are joining the activity of shrinking China's future for your next generation, just like your fathers fiercely did during the Cultural Revolution. If you cannot get out of this delusion of conquering neighbouring states and becoming a New Chinese Empire, you will ruin the future of China by yourself.
"the existence of any agreement is not the hinge . . . "
That's why Japan should try their utmost effort to honor the treaty sined by their King in a disgraceful manner before the international community:-PosDam Declaration with British prime inister Churchill's and US's Roosevelt's and Truman's and other world heads's signatures respectively. And further go to Japan's "Instrument of Surrender" signed in 1945.
Japan should not insist their private treaty with US to illegally to rob China in a stealth shameful manner while China had just been ransacke's islands d by 9 powers and facing vigorous civil war!
Japanese territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands has been unquestionable for more than a century, and without Japan's consent, China cannot do anything, and Japan will never give any consent to the aggressor, China. The civilized world, the world of the rule of law, is obviously on Japan's side. You don't have a friend in Asia.
Even the illegal holder who delegated Japan the islands stressing recently by US SS Ms Clinton confirmed Japan just hold administrative right there. Don't be shameless to claim
'...Japanese territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands has been unquestionable for more than a century... Queer Boy, don't mix the two concept of ownership and secret administrative duty as the same.....don't make laughting stuff in front of the world !
Waging wars, shouting political slogans, burning down Japanese investments, intentionally intruding Japanese airspace and territorial waters simply make China looks all the more horrible. The more China goes mad, the more neighbouring nations hate you. You are joining the activity of shrinking China's future for your next generation, just like your fathers fiercely did during the Cultural Revolution. If you cannot get out of this delusion of conquering neighbouring states and becoming a New Chinese Empire, you will ruin the future of China by yourself.
Don't be childish!
Emotional slander exercise to discredite whole 1.3 billion's voluntary anger towards Japan's childish/fuzzy move of privatizing the island dispiteously surpassed the threshold tolerance limit of Chinese sentiment.
1.3 billion would boycott conduct any business transaction with Japan even though it is not easy to separate or loss/loss situation!
Chinese are not mad but extremely furious to Japan's bully for decades!
"Ms Clinton confirmed Japan just hold administrative right . . ."
No, you are mistaken, as always. Mrs. Clinton said she would not "comment" on the territorial sovereignty. She neither said yes or no to the Japanese territorial sovereignty, she declined to make it clear, as they think it is not contributing to the peace of the region. So you can not decide which side the U.S. would stand, because they will not tell you what they have in mind. However, as the U.S. has maintained to stand, as a whole, by the basic principle of the international law (though China hates this so much), so I suppose it isn't so difficult to guess that they imply the Senkaku Islands' territorial sovereignty belongs to Japan. Maybe it is just unwise to tell the Chinese what they really think.
Ms Clinton reiterated US just confirm were delegated administrative right from US (not owner of the islands!?) many times openingly!
China respect International Laws and thereby China firmly the islands were/are China's sovereignty.
What China hate is someone wilfully mis-interpretation of the international laws to meet with Japan's illegal/greedy aim!
You always rebut/contradict yourself. You always insist that there is no room for implicit implication in international relation! Now are you saying something nonsense!?
"Ms Clinton reiterated US just confirm were delegated administrative right from US . . ."
This sentence is ungrammatical, so I did not necessarily figure out what you meant, but if you want to say the U.S. denied Japanese territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, it's FALSE. In fact, she NEVER made such remarks as you expected in your comment. Learn to distinguish your own interpretation from the original text.
"You always insist that there is no room for implicit implication in international relation . . ."
You changed your term from "implicit AGREEMENT" to "implicit implication . . ." Why is this? In the world outside China, there is a great difference between legality and politics. What makes you always confused is the fact that you, like many other Chinese, don't know the distinction between politics and legality. You lack the necessary social training in China, so you can't tell the difference. The modern world outside China follows this fundamental distinction to make the world civilized. If you are a subject of a Chinese dictator, such as Mao, you never need to respect it. However, as long as you would walk on the street and talk to the people in a civilized country, you need to learn what is free and what is binding. In the civilized world, you always need explicit agreements to change legal issues, . So, as long as it is related to legality, there could be no "implicit agreement", because no other nation would give you any legal right in an "implicit" way.
So if you are no longer talking about legality (territorial sovereignty) and changed the subject to pure politics, yes, there could be anything, but of course Japan NEVER gave China any consent even in a purely political way, so yours is meaningless right from the beginning.
I am awarded Honorary S.J.D.(Doctor of Judicial Science) from Harvard decade ago for my charity work. My mother tongue is French and I can communicate with others in more than ten languages. My profession is a psychiatrist with practice in Studio Incorp. in the 5th Avenue, NY. I train PhD students in family therapy in top universities around the world.
Usually I think much faster than what I write.
Anyhow don't always wilfully mis-interpretate/mislead simple concepts in a naive manner. It just make people in the forum feeling that some kind of decades of economic crisis/recession with unprecendental stress forcing the Japanese is retarded/regressed back to be so nonsensible as a common social psychological phenomena!?
hmmm, very interesting logic:
because china has an older history record, its behaviours are justified.
finally i understand why chinese crimes are rampant abroad.
Finally i understand why Japanese crimes are rampant abroad and at home notoriously!?
You say the reaction from Japan is understandable.Isn't the reaction from China understandable? Your arguement is based on the contract between Japan and America,it is your principle.But China is based on the history thousands years before,it is China's principle.Who are right?No one knows.Believe me,most of Chinese don't like conflicts or war,because we are not strong enough to stand the disaster brought from war.
To get rid of Chinese brainwash, always remember:
1. No Chinse person ever lived in the Senkaku Islands in HISTORY.
2. Not a word or protest was ever delivered to Japan from China in HISTORY (until oil was found there in 1970s).
3. Peace Treaty in 1952 did not change the legal status (territoriality) of the Senkaku Islands. Only the right of administration was granted for the U.S., between 1952-1972.
Although China had historically no control over the Senkaku Islands before the 1970s, the Chinese government decided that they want the Islands, so they sudenly decided that their ancestors owned the Senkaku Islands across the time and space. Nothing is illogical for the Chinese.
I would suggest that you would just forget about this young fantasy, just like your fathers forgot about the crazy political slogans or illusions in the 1970s, after the Cultural Revolution.
We need to understand that this is propaganda work for the US government. The latter had spent the greater part of the last two years trying to isolate, contain and encircle China. The western media are very good at spinning specious arguments to convince the naive and more or less stupid western population that their governments are always right. Their governments send their soldiers to invade and kill people in other countries and the western media declare this is right. The western governments send their planes to drop thoysands of bombs on the people of other countries though the latter are not attacking them and the western media declare this us right.
The western media declare that the world world support the murderous policies of the western governments and the western population believe it. The western population never think that in fact what the western media call the world is in fact the small portion of the world population who live in a few countries only.
Japan is an occupied territory. It is occupied by American soldiers who, to kill time, rape Japanese girls knowing full well that they cannot and will not be punished. Japan is not therefore an independent countrt but a vassal country of the US. The latter dictates its foreign policy. In the Diaoyu islands conflict, Japan is merely a puppet whose strings are pulled by the Americans. The latter want to contain China. This is their great pivot to Asia policy. However, after two years of strenuous efforts, after they have organised dozens of naval exercises in the Asia Pacific region, after their Secretary of State and Defense Secretary have visited all the countries of the region proposing them to become vassal countries of the US which all the countries except Japan have refused, after spending millions of dollars buying the governments of the region, including the government of Myanmar whose leaders incidentally turned into angels after years of being satans, the Americans have nothing to show. This is why they are pushing Japan to provoke China.
Oda, you itemized facts clearly. It is obvious that China is just chasing the oil.
There exists so many faults in your alleged argument/fact put forwards: The Japanese were entrusted only administrative right (rental right)from their war lord (US)which is an illegitimate owner of the island by illegal private agreement (San Francisco Peace Treaty) try to overide Int'l Court & UN resolution ( the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and the surrender terms Japan signed in 1945)while the victim China were in very detrimental sick conditions (fissured by eight powers & its civil war between KMT & Communist Party). No much protest before 1970, China was focus on recovery and honor the agreement to set aside the dispute for future/cleverer generation to handle).
Japan's politicians are just scumbag as gambler to secretly seizing chance to steal and theft
There exists so many faults in your alleged argument/fact put forwards: The Japanese were entrusted only administrative right (rental right)from their war lord (US)which is an illegitimate owner of the island by illegal private agreement (San Francisco Peace Treaty) try to overide Int'l Court & UN resolution ( the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and the surrender terms Japan signed in 1945)while the victim China were in very detrimental sick conditions (fissured by eight powers & its civil war between KMT & Communist Party). No much protest before 1970, China was focus on recovery and honor the agreement to set aside the dispute for future/cleverer generation to handle).
Japan's politicians are just scumbag as gambler to secretly seizing chance to steal and theft.
Aren't both China and Japan signatories to UNCLOS (U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty)? If so, why doesn't the UN settle this critical dispute?
The issue should be resolved through some sensible compromise, such as an agreement to share in any potential future oil or other commodities produced from their jointly-awarded leases for minerals extracted from those sub sea areas under dispute.
As long as the issue remains unresolved , there will be no exploratory drilling and no economic benefit to either party so both will be losers. Worse yet, both nations and the U.S. will be HUGE losers once the threatened shooting starts.
The U.S. should put its ally, Japan, on notice that if it refuses U.N. arbitration and shooting starts, the U.S. will reconsider it's alliance pledge of support in this singular instance.
Only after a competetive bid for a mineral (oil?) lease is accepted and issued, say to EXXON or Rosneft, for exploration, drilling and development of any sub sea resources, can there be a recognition of the potential value of the resources. If a few dry holes are drilled eventially, this will vindicate such an approzch, and China, Japan and maybe the U.S. will be spared another possibly bloody and economically debilitating idiotic war.
"Aren't both China and Japan signatories to UNCLOS (U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty)? If so, why doesn't the UN settle this critical dispute?"
Yes they are both signatories, but China insists on solving the South China Sea disputes bi-laterally.
The nine-dash line claim is outside anything UNCLOS would recognise as legal.
China also refuses to recognise the competence of ASEAN as a forum for discussion, and refuses to agree a binding code of conduct for the area, designed to prevent armed clashes leading to war.
This has rendered ASEAN impotent and increasingly irrelevant. China appears to have no interest in negotiating with anybody.
Aren't both China and Japan signatories to UNCLOS (U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty)? If so, why doesn't the UN settle this critical dispute?
Because China does not want to go to court. i suppose they know the islands are not theirs. They started the clam after the discovery of oil. Otherwise, there is no reason not to go to UN court.
Japan does not want to talk with China on this issue because they know the Diaoyu islands belong to China; otherwise, there is no reason why they cannot sit down and discuss the matter with China. Or else, The US is directing Japan not to discuss the matter with China; and since Japan is a vassal country of the US, it can do nothing.
foolish propoganda stop the lies and read history
In the nature of Chinese culture, being balanced is the best position. That also decides the country's attitude when she faces threats from the outside. Please be reminded of the fact, it is Japanese rightists' greedy and illegitimate intention of owning Diaoyu Islands that breaks the status quo and causes all the emotions and confrontations. So, no matter what an analysis about the issue is, do not forget the origination of the issue from the very beginning. Otherwise, the analysis must be baseless and biaed.
One hopes this Diaoyu/Senkaku dispute can be settled or controlled in the next couple of months.
The recent publications of opinion pieces from US scholars on US-China relation and John Kerry's confirmation hearings should be of interest to our fellow Chinese posters.
I foresee some subtle re-adjustment of the "pivot" in the second Obama administration.
I wouldn't be so confident. In the article they mentioned Kerry as being more accommodating to China, well he is Secretary of State, Obama's President and he does not run the Pentagon. Like in the first term, it will be Obama setting the agenda. Those are just comments, as good as yours or mine. Is Obama going to follow that advice? Most likely not.
Thank you for the comments and the references linked. Regarding the role of the US government in the Diaoyu islands issue, my understanding is any one, including Americans, can be judging, however no one, not excluding Americans, should think that their opinions are the only right ones and therefore are entitled to forcing others to follow them. Not to mention the issue is among countries, with utmost complicated historical and emotional background. How Americans thinks of the issue is of course important, but eventually Chinese people would make their own decisions and do what they think right.
I thank you for your nuanced understanding of the situation.
Many Japanese posters wrongly believe all this disputes is caused by the CCP. As mush as I wish the CCP away this dispute was forced onto the CCP. Grass root activism to "protect Diaoyu" from Taiwan and Hongkong, and finally China, has finally hatched on the Chinese national level. If it were NOT for the CCP you would see a MORE assertive China toward Japan, not less. That's my opinion. Why? Because on my family dinner table in America, whenever a dispute occurs with Japan, all I hear has been about the brutal factual instances of the Japanese brutality. I can only imagine how this dispute is discussed on zillions of Chinese dinner tables.
My only wish is the Chinese people come to their collective senses and I do have hope, even some faith on that. Of course the Chinese people have every right to hold the Japanese nation on an acceptable standard of the Japanese conscience. The Chinese people have not suffered more in their memorable history, not even under the governance of CCP, than what they experienced under the atrocious occupation of Japan.
Love is powerful so is hate, more so on a collective level.
@Wudang Wushu
"Most Chinese businessmen are NOT keen to invest in Indonesia"
So China sent a wave of prostitutes and conmen instead. Creating troubles to Indonesian Chinese.
"the Chinese still remembers the Indonesian raping of Chinese women in Jarkarta, during 1998 or was it 1999"
It was in May 1998 and what did Chinese mainlanders do to help? Not much, unlike the Taiwanese and HongKongers who protested loudly.
"I notice that most Chinese and Taiwanese regards Indonesia as a "no-go " country of rapists"
maybe true but at least the Vice Governor of Jakarta is a Chinese and he's well loved by the people. The problem is that bad characters keep coming from mainland China to Indonesia which threaten the harmony so painstakingly developed between ethnic Chinese and the indigenous people after 1998.
As for the the USD 9 billion, it was lent to the Bakrie family in return for tons of coal. The Bakries are reviled by most Indonesians but I guess Chinese mainlanders dont really care, they live and die to make money.
(1) Your corrupt Indonesian immigration officers are in business with the MAFIA crime synthicates to bring in foreign prostitutes----Chinese, Thais , Cambodians, whatever
Your immigration officers could easily have stopped any foreign prostitutes from coming into Indonesia
CLEAN UP your Immigration Dept corruption first, --- before blaming other countries
All religions condemn the raping of innocent women
The Islam Quran , the Christian Bible and all call rape a mortal sin
The raping of Chinese women in Jakarta is a major sin which will incur the wrath of Heaven
WHY rape innocent women --- if you want to fight and kill Indonesian Chinese men --- just do it --- but why rape the women who are not able to fight back
RAping defendless women is a COWARDLY ACT --- prove your manhood and fight with someone your size
ONe day---God may punish those Indonesians who had raped innocent Chinese women by making the ORANG-UTANS rape their sisters --- then they will realize how it feels to be raped
It has nothing to do with corruption. There are far more mainland prostitutes in Singapore than Indonesia. Is Singapore more corrupt than Indonesia? Its visa procedures for PRC nationals, they don't require visa anymore for ASEAN. Its a problem in Indonesia, but nothing compared to Singapore, where they are selling their sexy bodies to school boys. Well at least the Singapore government does not have to pay for sex education.
Mr. Wudang Wushu,
If Chinese were so frightened of Indonesia, there wouldn't be so many Chinese Tourist going to Indonesia, its increasing every year. About 600,000 last year. Indonesia's Tourism minister is Chinese Indonesian. Why is there so little investment in Indonesia? The question should be why is there so little Chinese investment in mature economies in SEA in general. Its because the West, Japanese and ethnic Chinese in those countries have taken all the good projects.
What is important is what happens after 1998. While the culprits have not been arrested, because given the chaotic situation they don't know who they are. Indonesia actually teaches its school children what happened to Chinese Indonesian in 1998.
How many of other Asian countries do that.
1) Vietnam, and its slaughter, rape of 700,000 Vietnamese Chinese?
2) The anti-Chinese riots in 1930-40s in Thailand
3) What about the anti-Chinese/anti-Indian discrimination in Malaysia?
4) South Korea's discrimination against its Chinese population.
The sad thing is like most Chinese people, you think of Indonesia like its still 1998, despite all the changes they have done after the fall of Suharto. The Indonesian President has apologized to the PRC for 1998. It has nothing to do with censorship, because the PRC press has written many articles on the changes. You like to attack somebody's nationality when they criticize you, and take an insult to you as an insult to China.
Chinese in SEA, especially Singaporean Chinese don't like Mainland Chinese. Indonesian Chinese are actually not that bad.
Among Indonesian Chinese, the dislike of Mainland China has more to do with the dislike of the CPC, rather than the people. Alot of Indonesian Chinese are devout Christian, the whole atheist thing does not play well with them. Secondly, since 1999 after the CPC started persecuting the Falon Gong, quite a few of them fled to Indonesia among other countries. Many of them ended up as teachers in some of the newly reopened Chinese schools. They even have a Radio Station in Indonesia, which the government of China has tried to get the Indonesian government to close down repeatedly. Eventually the Supreme Court in Indonesia said they could continue broadcasting.
Here is a story of Falun Gong followers from the PRC in Indonesia.
If Indonesia hated Chinese so much, why did the Indonesian government allow them to stay. Pre-1998 they would not have a hope in hell of staying in Indonesia. Falun Gong has started going into schools and teaching their exercises in Indonesia.
"if you want to fight and kill Indonesian Chinese men --- just do it"
You want me to kill myself?
Let me tell you one inconvenient fact; many overseas Chinese are pretty fed up with Chinese mainlanders. Why
1. They are arrogant.
2. They export a lot of prostitutes
3. Whether they are in China, Singapore or the west Chinese mainlanders are often dishonest. To be fair people of all nationalities are dishonest but Chinese are doing it without shame or reservation.
4. By being dishonest these Chinese mainlanders continue to cause friction between overseas Chinese and their host countries.
Given all these troubles Chinese mainlanders are making, Im very sure most overseas Chinese are overwhelmingly loyal to their adopted countries and wont lift a finger to help mainland China. We will even fight against you Wudang Wushu and your communist comrades though our ancestors might come from the same village.
Singapore is a very good example. Anti mainland China sentiment is running high there despite sharing the same heritage, even ancestors. Why? as Bismarck said because YOUR mafia export so many prostitutes. There are other reasons of course
Well done Bismarck.
YES , indeed
Both Zhou En-Lai and Deng Shiao-Ping had already informed Indonesian Chinese that they must be loyal to their adopted country, Indonesia
So--- you need to prove to the Natives that you are loyal citizens
Well done
We wish you and all Indonesians , -- "All the best"
"Why? as Bismarck said because YOUR mafia export so many prostitutes."
Actually the Chinese mafia does not export alot of prostitutes, most are freelancers. In Singapore they go on student visa/tourist visa and ply their trade.
"Anti mainland China sentiment is running high there despite sharing the same heritage, even ancestors. Why?"
One reason why there are problems with Mainlanders and Singaporeans, is they come from different provinces than most Singaporean Chinese. Singaporeans have issues not just with Mainlanders but with Indians also. Most Singaporean Indians are Southern Indians, most new Indians immigrants are Northerners.
In Southern Chinese cities like in Xiamen, Guangzhou and Shanghai, the locals don't get along with migrant workers from other provinces (Mandarin speakers). Its as bad as Singapore. They are tired of using Mandarin in their own cities.
@ Wudang Wushu
"Do you SE Asians think that the North-East Asians are stupid to go to war with each other ???"
I thought China and Japan scrambled their respective fighter jets and tailed each other? Are you saying this is just a circus? Your leaders must be clowns.
"if Indonesia goes to war with the Philipines---the world economy will still be intact and NOBODY bothers because these are "Banana-republics" "
In all humility what you said maybe true, but China has been the number one sick man of Asia since the dying days of Qing dynasty and only relatively recently (since Deng Xiaoping's rise to power) did the situation become better. No more crazy experiment to increase steel production by melting pots and pans leading to famine because iron tools were melted. No more humiliation of intellectuals and destruction of historic sites like in the Cultural Revolution. During those days Chinese mainlanders were BEGGING foreigners (including rich Filipinos and Indonesians) to come in and give them jobs or meat and yes BANANAS too just to survive. Now that you are rich, you can taunt even the once mighty Japanese. Time has changed indeed. Remember, PRIDE COMES BEFORE A FALL.
One more thing, before your arrogance carry you too far away, the Malacca straits is the place where most of China's energy imports from the middle east passes through. China's exports to Europe and Africa also passes this way I believe. So I think the world will care. In fact, PM Abe visited 3 SE Asian countries as his first foreign visit.
The problem is China herself. When the world cares about SE Asia, China feels encircled.
TALKING IS CHEAP -- and you people talk a lot
Empty vessels make the most noise --- all empty talk and no substance
IN 1988, at the UN Conference of the Sea --- Indonesia demanded that all foreign ships wanting to pass through the Malacca Straits must be checked and approved by the Indonesian Navy first
In response to this Indonesian demand--- an American Admiral had said --- the American Navy will pass through the Malacca Straits as and when it likes without having to ask anybody --- and then he challenged the Indonesian Navy by saying " STOP US IF YOU CAN" --- to which SILENCE from the Indoneasian
WHAT the American Admiral is saying is that "INdonesia is still a 5th rate world power" SO don't talk big until you have become a superpower
Again you are making stuff up. No US Admiral would say that. And Indonesia would ever say that in 1988, particularly with Suharto in power (ie a US puppet). It might have happened in 1960s, but definitely not in 1988. The Malacca Strait is patrolled by three navies, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia.
I guarantee if China does anything funny in SEA, US/Indonesia/Singapore/Malaysia will choke the Malacca Strait. If the dark skinned Indians join in, no oil will travel through the Malacca Strait. The Nicobar Islands setting at the mouth of the Malacca Straits is owned by India, India has a population of 400,000 in the Nicobar, large naval facilities. The place is actually a part of India, not some colony. Only the US Navy can break a blockade by Asean-India, China would not have a chance at this moment. China would need at least 5-6 Carriers to have a chance. All of the countries bordering the Malacca Strait have hundreds of land based aircraft, two of them (India and Thailand) actually have operating aircraft carriers.
Anyways, unlike ASEAN. India or no thanks due to your incompetent Diplomats, China has a lot more to worry about. The Chinese Navy will have to deal with US in the Yellow Sea, then there are evil Japanese in Diaoyu and lets not forget the South China Sea. China would have to have navy twice the size of the US to militarily deal with all of this.
(1) India's Aircraft Carrier == the INS Viraat (ex-HMS Hermes )
Its hull first laid in Britain in 1947
Entered service in the British Navy in 1953
Fought in the Falklands 1985
It is a 60 year old ship that is in such a bad shape that it is about to sink on its own -- anytime
(2) Thailand Carrier is a Helicopter carrier --- NOT An aircraft-carrier
It is 15,000 tons----- small by any standards
STOP your mis-information
China has an aircraft carrier that is not even fully operational yet, so look who is talking. As for Thailand its an aircraft carrier according to design specifications. Anyways, The Nicobar island is one big aircraft carrier setting in smack in the mouth of the Malacca Strait. That is all that really matters. Even with 6 Aircraft Carriers China would be able to match the land based aircraft fielded nu Thailand, Indonesia, India, Singapore or Malaysia.
If China was to send its aircraft carrier in the Malacca Strait it would last 1 hour upon entering it.
hey wudang, have you send India's military parade, they have this show: 10 soldiers are riding on a single motorcycles! What the hell, if they don't have enough motorcycles they can always buy some from China since we have tons there, and you wonder where is the huge India's military budget, they can't just buy enough motorcycles for the soldiers? Can't help giggle.
oh, "have you seen..... riding a single motorcycle"
Thailand had officially classified its carrier as a Helicopter carrier
It is too small for any jet-fighter to land on ---its runway is too short and narrow
Only an Indian pilot will call it an aircraft carrier and land his plane on it--- into the water
That is how you make enemies. I am not even Thai for Godsake, what good does it do to insult Thailand.
Actually you are wrong. That aircraft carrier was originally built to handle to Harriers. It was built by the Spanish. By your definition none of UK previous carriers were aircraft carriers. Do you want a bet the Harrier can't land on it. No you won't because you very well know a Harrier can land on it. Word of advice, silly boy, never use the word any/never.
The Thais themselves call their carrier --- a Helicopter carrier
The Harrier STOVL is a dangerous plan and had killed many of its own pilots ---- the Americans call it the "Widow maker"
And why should calling a spade a spade insult the Thais --- the Thais have an average IQ of 105 and can straitaway appreciate that it is not an insult
Wudang Wushu, you just said this
"It is too small for any jet-fighter to land on"
Bismarck the said this
"That aircraft carrier was originally built to handle to Harriers"
"Do you want a bet the Harrier can't land on it."
So can you please now answer whether a jet fighter can land on it?
Why do you like mentioning IQ all the time. The carrier is a carrier, and it can be used for VSTOL aircraft. And at one point that is what the Thais were using it for. But since the Asian Financial Crisis they have stopped using their VSTOL aircraft for it.
China is a peaceful country ,people there never want to invade other countries.On the contrary,Japan is a real terrorist country in history!Now,Japan is just pretending a lovely pet to America,but IT is will take revenge on America for the two Atomic bombs!
It is just protest against someone illegally rob, rape & mass killing your fellow country men in violation of human right/war crime beyond tolerance by any historians and still proclaim holding the theft property as their own! Totao ridiculous!
Once again... Do you think TE is warmongering?...
I'm starting to think there are some British journalists who would really love to see the world burn in flames!...
Oh, I remember now! Pretty much like a James Bond tycoon who wanted to provoke war near Hong Kong... Tomorrow Never Dies ;D
any news on the $100 million damage suit against japns government lying and hiding the deadly nuke reactor radiation leak info filed by several american sailormen of aircraft carrier stationing just off japan? the us of course has japan all occupied by the us forces.
they may get the damage award, but collecting it can be something else, now that japan is banging its head on the chinese diaoyu island and bleeding profusely of money that japan doesn't have.
japan could ask a bridge loan from india or china, until japns new (funny ) money is printed out by QE. may be that's why mr abe's messanger the leader of the New Komeito party is in china begging? when is he going to new delhi to pan handle his india round?
No, but I think they have a bit of an anti PRC bias when it comes to politics, it being a dictatorship, and international affairs.
For warmongering, you have to check professional wrestling. If they create an asiatic character for the unwash to root against then you know something is going on in the collective conscious (see bad characters for the Soviets and arabs in the past).
The Economist explains: Who would pay a "mansion tax"
The Economist explains
Football and British politics: David Cameron's own goal
Game theory
Britain's election campaign: April 26th: The silence of David Cameron
The week ahead: A very normal affair
Football and politics: David Cameron's own goal
America's Ukrainian mission: Training wheels
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more