China and Japan dispute over Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands

[LETHALFORCE]

Islands dispute hurts investment, trade with Japan

Islands dispute hurts investment, trade with Japan

CHINA - The territorial dispute over the Diaoyu Islands has hurt Japanese investment in China and bilateral trade between the countries, according to central government commerce authorities.

In September, Japanese investment in China and bilateral trade saw a slowdown, which Ministry of Commerce spokesman Shen Danyang described at a briefing on Friday as "to some degree" related to the Japanese government's "purchase" of the disputed islands.

But "as long as Japan corrects its wrongdoings, there is actually great room for the long-term development of Sino-Japanese economic and trade relations," and China believes that bilateral trade should enjoy a healthy future, the spokesman said.

The first nine months saw Japanese investment in China total $5.62 billion, an increase of 17 per cent year-on-year, but at a much slower speed than its expansion in 2011, which the ministry reported as 50 per cent.

In the meantime, bilateral trade saw a net decrease of 1.8 per cent to $248.7 billion.

In September alone, trade went down as much as 4.5 per cent year-on-year, when China saw an increase of 2.2 per cent in its exports to Japan and a decrease of 9.6 per cent in imports, according to the General Administration of Customs.

Zhang Jianping, a researcher from the Institute for International Economic Research under the National Development Reform Commission, envisaged that "the negative effect of the island dispute will be reflected in Japan's investment in China from the following months into the next year."

China is Japan's largest trade partner and Japan is China's second largest source of foreign direct investment.

"The decrease in Japan's investment in China will probably also harm Japan's own economy through a decline in exports and corporate profits, while it would add pressure to China's slowdown, affecting its industrial job market and domestic consumption," he said.

 

[mayfair]

i'm going to stop argue with some immature hardline jap, thinking japan has the right to all the island claim by other nation s.korea/china/taiwan/russia etc

I a Japanese???

Guess you've finally lost it completely. I am not sure you had it ever to begin with.

Now jog on and put find yourself some copious amounts of burnol...

 

[LETHALFORCE]

China warns of strong steps in Japan island spat


BEIJING, Oct 26 (Reuters) - China reserves the right to take strong countermeasures if Japan "creates incidents" in the waters around a group of disputed uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, a Chinese vice foreign minister said on Friday.

"We are watching very closely what action Japan might take regarding the Diaoyu islands and their adjacent waters," Zhang Zhijun said at an unusual late night news briefing. "The action that Japan might take will shape China's countermeasures."

Sino-Japanese relations took a dive after the Japanese government bought the islands, called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China, from a private Japanese owner in September, triggering violent protests and calls for boycotts of Japanese products across China.

"If Japan continues down its current wrong path and takes more erroneous actions and creates incidents regarding the Diaoyu Islands and challenges China, China will definitely take strong measures to respond to that," Zhang said.

"There is no lack of countermeasures China might take in response," he added.

"We have the confidence and the ability to uphold the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. No amount of foreign threats or pressure will shake the resolve of the Chinese government and people."

Following Japan's purchase of the islands, China sent fishery patrol and marine surveillance vessels to waters near the islets, raising concern that confrontation with Japanese patrol ships could escalate into a broader conflict.

Senior Japanese and Chinese diplomats have met to discuss a dispute over East China Sea islets that both countries claim, the Japanese government said on Wednesday, underscoring willingness to talk despite a sharp deterioration in ties.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura confirmed talks between Tokyo and Beijing after domestic media reported that Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Chikao Kawai secretly met senior Chinese officials, including his counterpart, Zhang Zhijun, in Shanghai last week to discuss the dispute.

Zhang did not indicate that those talks had made any progress.

"In all levels of contact with the Japanese side, the Chinese side presented China's stern position and steely resolve to uphold China's sovereignty. We urge the Japanese side to give up its illusions and correct its mistakes," he said.

"Only this way can we return to normal relations."

China says the islands have been part of the country since ancient times. Taiwan also claims them.

The row with China, the world's second-largest economy and Japan's largest trading partner, has prompted the Bank of Japan to cut its outlook for economies in the region. (Reporting by Terril Yue Jones; Writing by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Michael Roddy)

China warns of strong steps in Japan island spat | Reuters

 

[trackwhack]

It does not look like the CCP is able to reign in the PLA, which I think is ready for war. They are priming up for a nice spanking by the Japanese navy.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

The Dangerous Math of Chinese Island Disputes


If history is any guide, there's a real risk Beijing will use force against Japan over the Senkakus.

By M. TAYLOR FRAVEL

China's standoff with Japan over the rocky Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands has entered its second month. The current confrontation, however, is more dangerous than is commonly believed. China's past behavior in other territorial disputes demonstrates why the Senkaku standoff is primed to explode.

Since 1949, China has been involved in 23 territorial disputes with its neighbors on land and at sea. Seventeen of them have been settled, usually through compromise agreements. Nevertheless, China has used force, often more than once, in six of these disputes. And it's these cases that most closely parallel the Senkaku impasse.

To start, China has usually only used force in territorial disputes with its most militarily capable neighbors. These include wars or major clashes with India, Russia and Vietnam (several times), as well as crises involving Taiwan. These states have had the greatest ability to check China's territorial ambitions. In disputes with weaker states, such as Mongolia or Nepal, Beijing has eschewed force because it could negotiate from a position of strength. Japan is now China's most powerful maritime neighbor, with a modern navy and a large coast guard.

China has also used force most frequently in disputes over offshore islands such as the Senkakus. Along its land border, China has used force only in about one-fifth of 16 disputes. By contrast, China has used force in half of its four island disputes. Islands are seen as possessing much more strategic, military and economic value because they influence sea-lane security and may hold vast stocks of hydrocarbons and fish.

In addition, China has mostly used force to strengthen its position in disputes where it has occupied little or none of the land that it claims. In 1988, for example, China clashed with Vietnam as it occupied six coral reefs that are part of the Spratly Islands. China had claimed sovereignty over the Spratlys for decades—but had not controlled any part of them before this occupation.

In cases where China already possessed some of the contested territory, such as a border dispute with Kazakhstan, China had a strong bargaining position and little reason to use force. But in the East China Sea, China does not currently hold any of the Senkaku Islands, which are under Japanese control.

Most importantly, China has used force in territorial disputes during periods of regime insecurity, when leaders have a greater incentive to show resolve: They believe that opposing states seek to take advantage of China's domestic woes, and that a weak or limited response might increase popular discontent.

China's leaders today may feel on the ropes for several reasons—elite conflict at the highest levels of the ruling Chinese Communist Party; a slowing economy that undermines the legitimacy of the CCP; and a delicate transition of power from one generation of leaders to the next. These factors increase the value of using firm action to signal resolve to both Japan and the Chinese public. They also decrease Beijing's willingness to compromise or be seen as backing down.

To Chinese eyes, Japan's Senkaku moves look like attempts to capitalize on Chinese difficulties. The current standoff began in April, when nationalist Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara announced a plan to buy three of the islands from their private Japanese owner. Mr. Ishihara's announcement came just days after Beijing suspended Politburo member Bo Xilai from all his positions in the CCP—arguably the biggest upheaval in elite Chinese politics in more than two decades.

Diplomatic positions hardened as China's economic growth slowed much faster than expected, an increasing source of worry for Beijing's leaders. Then Japanese Premier Yoshihiko Noda announced his decision to buy the islands on the July anniversary of the 1937 Marco Polo Bridge incident, which marked Japan's bid to conquer all of China. Finally, the sale was completed in September just days before the anniversary of the 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria.

The final destabilizing factor in the Senkaku standoff is that both sides are simultaneously engaged in other island disputes. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak recently broke with tradition and became the first Seoul leader to visit the disputed Dokdo (Takeshima) Islands, which are occupied by the Koreans but also claimed by Japan. Meanwhile, China has been dueling with Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea. Tokyo and Beijing may both conclude that whoever prevails in the Senkakus will have a better chance at prevailing in these other disputes.

History is not destiny. China has not used force in a territorial dispute for more than 20 years. Escalation over the Senkakus may be avoided. Nevertheless, the current situation is fraught with danger. Should a fatal incident occur involving government ships from either country, a real crisis may begin whose end cannot be foretold.

Mr. Fravel is an associate professor of political science and member of the Security Studies Program at MIT, and author of "Strong Borders, Secure Nation: Cooperation and Conflict in China's Territorial Disputes" (Princeton, 2008).


M. Taylor Fravel: The Dangerous Math of Chinese Island Disputes - WSJ.com

 

[LETHALFORCE]

US must clearly back Japan in islands dispute with China


The United States might prefer that the territorial dispute between China and Japan over uninhabited islands simply go away. America, after all, has enough of its own problems to fix. And it's loathe to meddle in a fight between two of its most important trading partners – countries still grappling with their war-time history.

Commentary: Harvard Kennedy School Professor Anthony Saich explores the future of US-Chinese relations.
While the recent flare-ups over their rival claims to islands in the East China Sea may temporarily die down, the underlying causes will not be resolved anytime soon. The dispute also has the potential to escalate into a tempest that threatens the region – and in turn, America's security.

America rightly wants good relations with both Japan and China. However, sometimes one has to take sides. Intentional ambiguity can be useful in foreign affairs, but not here.

OPINION: Five tough truths about US-China relations

The US, then, should take this moment to ensure its position avoids any ambiguity toward the islands, called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. It should stand far more publicly with its democratic ally, Japan, and against the bullying tactics being applied by China. Asian countries are closely watching.

True, Japan has ongoing territorial disputes with South Korea and Russia. But Japan has not used or threatened force, or applied economic pressure to retrieve what it considers Japanese territory.

Chinese behavior in the last two years starkly differs. Chinese patrol boats continue a cat-and-mouse game of harassment near the Senkakus. Beijing has encouraged and apparently fomented rioting against Japanese interests in China. And it has threatened and carried out economic retaliation against Japan. Chinese officials and media have made crudely aggressive and derogatory statements toward Japan and Japanese people.

China's trotting out of Japanese behavior from nearly eight decades ago to inflame the public is cynical demagoguery. Demonization, as a government policy, is often a diversionary tactic to cover weaknesses within a regime. The world has seen too much of this in the last 20 years, and in simple terms, this is not how civilized nations behave.

One is hard pressed to find a more responsible country than Japan over the last 60 years. It has apologized repeatedly, even if perhaps imperfectly, for its behavior in the 1930s and 1940s, and provided billions of dollars in regional aid – not to mention massive commercial investments in Asia that spurred regional economic growth. Today's Japan is not the Japan of the 1930s, as much as China would have its people believe. Moreover, Tokyo has been a reliable – if sometimes prickly – American ally.

The US policy to recognize Japanese administrative control of the Senkaku islands but take no formal position on ultimate sovereignty is sensible. That still obligates the US (under the US-Japan Security Treaty) to come to Japan's defense if the islands are attacked, without entangling Washington in the twists and turns of the islands' history.

However, when stating its position and its support of Japan, the US government should avoid drifting into overly nuanced language that potentially results in nobody understanding what its exact position is.

This is a particular risk when trying to conduct a delicate balancing act between two parties to a dispute. A classic example in recent times was the US ambassador's puzzlingly nuanced conversation with Saddam Hussein in 1990 that the dictator probably interpreted as a "green light" to invade Kuwait.

US officials have properly reaffirmed that the Senkakus fall under its security treaty with Japan. But there is more involved than a mere contractual obligation.

One hopes to hear American officials make at least passing references to Japan as a country that exemplifies ideals that America values, such as consensual government, rule of law, freedom of expression and thought, fair trade, and protection of property rights.

The US alone cannot solve the Senkakus problem. Japan needs to talk to China, and vice versa – even if there is nothing yet to agree on. At the same time, Japan should establish a modest, but adequate military presence in its southern islands (the Nansei Shoto) to be closer to the disputed area.

This is not risk-free, but Japan's almost nonexistent official presence is itself destabilizing and too easily regarded as a lack of interest or willingness to defend its territorial interests – as the British learned in 1982, when Argentina attacked the weakly defended Falkland Islands.

Japan should also improve its Self Defense Force's capabilities for joint operations between the services – and with US forces. The Japanese government needs to speak up publicly and frequently on behalf of the US military alliance.

And Japan must demonstrate its commitment by spending more on defense. It allocates less than 1 percent of GDP to defense, or about the same as Nepal percentage-wise. An additional $5 billion to $10 billion would go a long way, and Japan has the money – which is approximately the same amount as a couple of unnecessary public works projects.

Of course, Japan must be careful about its actions and its official statements – to exercise restraint and bite its tongue when necessary. Periodic tit-for-tat behavior by certain prominent Japanese politicians that apparently seek to goad China is irresponsible. Japan must not give other countries grounds for claiming today's Japan resembles 1930s Japan – no matter how unfounded the charge.

The Senkakus dispute may take decades or even longer to resolve. But America must express patience and firmness – even if there is an economic cost. It must stand for principles such as rule of law, individual freedoms, and consensual government rather than opting for short-term expediency in hopes of pleasing everyone. That will be the safest approach over the long term.

OPINION: 3 reasons why China isn't overtaking the US

Reward bad behavior, and one invariably gets more of it. Concede on the Senkakus – or better said, concede on the principles at stake in the Senkakus – and the same problem will surface elsewhere in Asia before long.

Grant Newsham is a former US Foreign Service officer and is a long-time resident of Japan.


US must clearly back Japan in islands dispute with China (+ video) - CSMonitor.com

 

[s002wjh]

US must clearly back Japan in islands dispute with China


The United States might prefer that the territorial dispute between China and Japan over uninhabited islands simply go away. America, after all, has enough of its own problems to fix. And it's loathe to meddle in a fight between two of its most important trading partners – countries still grappling with their war-time history.

Commentary: Harvard Kennedy School Professor Anthony Saich explores the future of US-Chinese relations.
While the recent flare-ups over their rival claims to islands in the East China Sea may temporarily die down, the underlying causes will not be resolved anytime soon. The dispute also has the potential to escalate into a tempest that threatens the region – and in turn, America's security.

America rightly wants good relations with both Japan and China. However, sometimes one has to take sides. Intentional ambiguity can be useful in foreign affairs, but not here.

OPINION: Five tough truths about US-China relations

The US, then, should take this moment to ensure its position avoids any ambiguity toward the islands, called Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China. It should stand far more publicly with its democratic ally, Japan, and against the bullying tactics being applied by China. Asian countries are closely watching.

True, Japan has ongoing territorial disputes with South Korea and Russia. But Japan has not used or threatened force, or applied economic pressure to retrieve what it considers Japanese territory.

Chinese behavior in the last two years starkly differs. Chinese patrol boats continue a cat-and-mouse game of harassment near the Senkakus. Beijing has encouraged and apparently fomented rioting against Japanese interests in China. And it has threatened and carried out economic retaliation against Japan. Chinese officials and media have made crudely aggressive and derogatory statements toward Japan and Japanese people.

China's trotting out of Japanese behavior from nearly eight decades ago to inflame the public is cynical demagoguery. Demonization, as a government policy, is often a diversionary tactic to cover weaknesses within a regime. The world has seen too much of this in the last 20 years, and in simple terms, this is not how civilized nations behave.

One is hard pressed to find a more responsible country than Japan over the last 60 years. It has apologized repeatedly, even if perhaps imperfectly, for its behavior in the 1930s and 1940s, and provided billions of dollars in regional aid – not to mention massive commercial investments in Asia that spurred regional economic growth. Today's Japan is not the Japan of the 1930s, as much as China would have its people believe. Moreover, Tokyo has been a reliable – if sometimes prickly – American ally.

The US policy to recognize Japanese administrative control of the Senkaku islands but take no formal position on ultimate sovereignty is sensible. That still obligates the US (under the US-Japan Security Treaty) to come to Japan's defense if the islands are attacked, without entangling Washington in the twists and turns of the islands' history.

However, when stating its position and its support of Japan, the US government should avoid drifting into overly nuanced language that potentially results in nobody understanding what its exact position is.

This is a particular risk when trying to conduct a delicate balancing act between two parties to a dispute. A classic example in recent times was the US ambassador's puzzlingly nuanced conversation with Saddam Hussein in 1990 that the dictator probably interpreted as a "green light" to invade Kuwait.

US officials have properly reaffirmed that the Senkakus fall under its security treaty with Japan. But there is more involved than a mere contractual obligation.

One hopes to hear American officials make at least passing references to Japan as a country that exemplifies ideals that America values, such as consensual government, rule of law, freedom of expression and thought, fair trade, and protection of property rights.

The US alone cannot solve the Senkakus problem. Japan needs to talk to China, and vice versa – even if there is nothing yet to agree on. At the same time, Japan should establish a modest, but adequate military presence in its southern islands (the Nansei Shoto) to be closer to the disputed area.

This is not risk-free, but Japan's almost nonexistent official presence is itself destabilizing and too easily regarded as a lack of interest or willingness to defend its territorial interests – as the British learned in 1982, when Argentina attacked the weakly defended Falkland Islands.

Japan should also improve its Self Defense Force's capabilities for joint operations between the services – and with US forces. The Japanese government needs to speak up publicly and frequently on behalf of the US military alliance.

And Japan must demonstrate its commitment by spending more on defense. It allocates less than 1 percent of GDP to defense, or about the same as Nepal percentage-wise. An additional $5 billion to $10 billion would go a long way, and Japan has the money – which is approximately the same amount as a couple of unnecessary public works projects.

Of course, Japan must be careful about its actions and its official statements – to exercise restraint and bite its tongue when necessary. Periodic tit-for-tat behavior by certain prominent Japanese politicians that apparently seek to goad China is irresponsible. Japan must not give other countries grounds for claiming today's Japan resembles 1930s Japan – no matter how unfounded the charge.

The Senkakus dispute may take decades or even longer to resolve. But America must express patience and firmness – even if there is an economic cost. It must stand for principles such as rule of law, individual freedoms, and consensual government rather than opting for short-term expediency in hopes of pleasing everyone. That will be the safest approach over the long term.

OPINION: 3 reasons why China isn't overtaking the US

Reward bad behavior, and one invariably gets more of it. Concede on the Senkakus – or better said, concede on the principles at stake in the Senkakus – and the same problem will surface elsewhere in Asia before long.

Grant Newsham is a former US Foreign Service officer and is a long-time resident of Japan.


US must clearly back Japan in islands dispute with China (+ video) - CSMonitor.com

so let me get this straight, its disputeable island, where japan can send its patrol ship and land its citizen for decades, but when china send in its patrol its bully now. in the 70s china/japan came to an agreement to keep the status quo in place regarding this island for warmer relationship. japan decide to break this status quo by purchase the island now, thus anger the chinese counterpart.
as far as wwii goes, if japan truly apologize/understand its behavior in wwii, why its offical keep visiting shrine that honor war criminal, why its history book continue to leave blanks regarding things happen during wwii(if you ask any japanese on nanjing massacre/unit 731, do they know what it is). as far as investment, its all business, nothing else. as far as compensation toward korean/chinese for its wwii atrocity, both country never receive any. so can you blame chinese/korean hatred toward japanese, when obivously japan never really truly apologize to them nor give any compensation to either country, instead japan continue saying they have given aid/apologize etc etc.

 

[mikhail]

so let me get this straight, its disputeable island, where japan can send its patrol ship and land its citizen for decades, but when china send in its patrol its bully now. in the 70s china/japan came to an agreement to keep the status quo in place regarding this island for warmer relationship. japan decide to break this status quo by purchase the island now, thus anger the chinese counterpart.
as far as wwii goes, if japan truly apologize/understand its behavior in wwii, why its offical keep visiting shrine that honor war criminal, why its history book continue to leave blanks regarding things happen during wwii(if you ask any japanese on nanjing massacre/unit 731, do they know what it is). as far as investment, its all business, nothing else. as far as compensation toward korean/chinese for its wwii atrocity, both country never receive any. so can you blame chinese/korean hatred toward japanese, when obivously japan never really truly apologize to them nor give any compensation to either country, instead japan continue saying they have given aid/apologize etc etc.

mate what happened in the past was wrong but that doesn't mean that we also have do wrong things to make that right as two wrongdoings can't make one rightdoing!yeah its true that Japan commited many war crimes during WW-2 but they have already paid very hefty price for those crimes(Heroshima and Nagashaki bombings).so it's better that we should move on and should forget the past.otherwise the Brits had also commit many horrendous crimes against us Indians in the past but that doesn't mean that we should take revenge for those crimes after six long decades.this is only sane way of maintaining peace and stability in the entire world!

 

[s002wjh]

mate what happened in the past was wrong but that doesn't mean that we also have do wrong things to make that right as two wrongdoings can't make one rightdoing!yeah its true that Japan commited many war crimes during WW-2 but they have already paid very hefty price for those crimes(Heroshima and Nagashaki bombings).so it's better that we should move on and should forget the past.otherwise the Brits had also commit many horrendous crimes against us Indians in the past but that doesn't mean that we should take revenge for those crimes after six long decades.this is only sane way of maintaining peace and stability in the entire world!

i was just point out some obivious bias from author of that article. but if japan really adimit its wrong doing, then compensate for the victim/don't goto war shrine/don't hide the wwii history etc, i'm sure hatred toward japan from china/korea will subside if they do the above. also seem like india/china can't forget teh 62 issue either, its not that easy just to forget something on the scale of WWII, espeically japan haven't really adimit about it, usually just brush aside these historic stains.

 

[Virendra]

Japan is now raising these concerns in its developing trilateral with US, India. I think they would ask both the countries to take a clear stand on the islands issue.

Islands’ tiff: Japan briefs India - The Times of India
Excerpts:

NEW DELHI: Signaling their growing alarm, senior Japanese officials gave a classified briefing to Indian and US officials on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands earlier this week. China and Japan are locked in a territorial dispute over these islands in the East China Sea that has recently escalated to the level that has rung alarm bells among strategists.

This was part of the third trilateral meeting among India, Japan and the US, where the three countries explored possibilities of working together in the region. The trilateral has attracted criticism from China, which has blamed Tokyo for spreading its anxieties about Beijing's rise among other countries.

The trilateral, the third in the past one year, has now evolved into a deeper interaction where the three major nations exchange their strategic perceptions of the region. In the past months, India, Japan and the US have been working together to develop trade and economic linkages in south-east Asia. Myanmar also plays a key role as all three countries have reformed their ties with the junta-ruled nation.

India has proposed an east-west corridor connecting India via Myanmar with Thailand and further all the way to Vietnam. India, Myanmar and Thailand are already working on a trilateral highway that aims to provide connectivity and improve economic linkages among the countries of this region, and the trilateral effort will only augment this. At a deeper level, this aims to give countries on this corridor an alternative to the north-south connectivity provided by China's massively funded outreach to the region.

While a lot will depend on India's growing presence in Myanmar, it will be the redirection of Japan's overseas development assistance (ODA) programme that will actually fund these ventures, with the US providing the strategic heft to see this through. In past decades, Japan had used ODA to its advantage, but in recent years, Japanese assistance has dwindled, and in many countries this has been overtaken by China's humongous overseas enterprise. Japan, whose ODA is currently overwhelmingly directed to India and also Vietnam, is returning to its cheque book diplomacy as it attempts to regain influence in a China-dominated region.

As India, Japan and the US engage more intensively in the Asia-Pacific, they are bound to come up against a more assertive China which will take exception to what it sees as an attempt to corral it in the region by these three countries. India has asserted that it has interests in the Asia-Pacific, a fact that was mentioned in a joint statement with the Chinese defence minister during his recent visit to India. For the US, this is part of their much publicized "pivot" to Asia.

The three countries are also looking at joining forces for economic development projects in Afghanistan, which is of strategic importance to both India and the US, while Japan may remain one of the largest donors in the post-2014 environment. India and the US are pooling their strengths in a trilateral format with Afghanistan to ensure it doesn't descend into chaos again.
...
...

Regards.
Virendra

 

[amoy]

Japan is often said to have a de facto control over Diaoyu, but it's no longer so.

In below pics China's Marine Surveillance boat is so close that almost bumps into the Japan Coast Guard ship on Diaoyu waters

That reminds me of Soviet frigate Bezzavetnyy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 12 February 1988 the ship intentionally[1][2] rammed the American missile cruiser USS Yorktown on Soviet territorial waters while Yorktown was claiming innocent passage.

LiveLeak.com - Soviet Frigate Bezzavetnyy rams USS Yorktown

 

[asianobserve]

That reminds me of Soviet frigate Bezzavetnyy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LiveLeak.com - Soviet Frigate Bezzavetnyy rams USS Yorktown

So China is the USSR in the contested islands? A fitting analogy I must say...

 

[amoy]

So China is the USSR in the contested islands? A fitting analogy I must say...

Russia shall be a role model in dealing with Japan. Medvedev Visits Kuril Islands | Russia | RIA Novosti

Anyway it was Japan who invited all the humiliation, by "nationalizing" the islands that had stayed quiet for decades. China was cornered as that would perpetuate Japan's grip of them.

And there'd been no better timing, since Noda government has become a lame duck unlikely to stay in the office next year.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

U.S. and Japan Begin Huge Military Drill, Minus Key Part - NYTimes.com

U.S. and Japan Begin Huge Military Drill, Minus Key Part

the Japanese government canceled a joint amphibious landing on a remote island in what experts described as an effort not to provoke China, which is locked in an emotional dispute with Japan over control of uninhabited islands near Okinawa in the East China Sea.

 

[amoy]

Ryukyu (Okinawa) is suffering

Okinawa slams US rape case, calls for treaty review — RT

Drunken US airman allegedly assaults boy on Okinawa

Beyond Diaoyu, Ryukyu people's voice

The residents of the island have long complained over the US troop presence, linking it to elevated crime levels, pollution and noise. In addition, the Japanese Defense Ministry estimates that 50 per cent of crimes and accidents that take place on the island can be attributed in some way to the US military stationed there.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Japan briefs India, US on islands tiff with China - Times Of India

Japan briefs India, US on islands tiff with China

This was part of the third trilateral meeting among India, Japan and the US, where the three countries explored possibilities of working together in the region. The trilateral has attracted criticism from China, which has blamed Tokyo for spreading its anxieties about Beijing's rise among other countries.

 

[Oblaks]

so let me get this straight, its disputeable island, where japan can send its patrol ship and land its citizen for decades, but when china send in its patrol its bully now. in the 70s china/japan came to an agreement to keep the status quo in place regarding this island for warmer relationship. japan decide to break this status quo by purchase the island now, thus anger the chinese counterpart.
as far as wwii goes, if japan truly apologize/understand its behavior in wwii, why its offical keep visiting shrine that honor war criminal, why its history book continue to leave blanks regarding things happen during wwii(if you ask any japanese on nanjing massacre/unit 731, do they know what it is). as far as investment, its all business, nothing else. as far as compensation toward korean/chinese for its wwii atrocity, both country never receive any. so can you blame chinese/korean hatred toward japanese, when obivously japan never really truly apologize to them nor give any compensation to either country, instead japan continue saying they have given aid/apologize etc etc.

Japan had control of these islands. It was the chinese who started provocations by incursions of chinese trawlers prompting the Japs government to buy the islands to take full control.

 

[Oblaks]

Russia shall be a role model in dealing with Japan. Medvedev Visits Kuril Islands | Russia | RIA Novosti

Anyway it was Japan who invited all the humiliation, by "nationalizing" the islands that had stayed quiet for decades. China was cornered as that would perpetuate Japan's grip of them.

And there'd been no better timing, since Noda government has become a lame duck unlikely to stay in the office next year.

Actually the world sees it otherwise, either China yielded hate or became a laughing stock for the rest of the world because if their bullish or childish behaviour

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

China hasn't a legal leg to stand on in its tussle with Japan


RECENTLY, there has been extensive coverage of Japan-China ties and various opinions published in The Australian. In this article, I would like to present certain facts and the basic position of the Japanese government regarding the Senkaku Islands.

In particular, I would like to reiterate that the Senkaku Islands are an inherent part of the territory of Japan, in light of historical facts and based upon international law.

From 1885, the government of Japan undertook thorough surveys of the Senkaku Islands and confirmed that they were uninhabited and that there was no trace of them having been under the control of China. The government of Japan formally incorporated the Senkaku Islands into Japan on January 14, 1895. These measures were carried out in accordance with the accepted means of duly acquiring territorial sovereignty under international law (terra nullius). Therefore, there are no territorial issues to be resolved between Japan and China.


There is clear evidence that China considered the Senkaku Islands to be part of Japanese territory. In 1920, the then consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki wrote a letter of appreciation for the rescue of 31 Chinese fishermen who, as the letter reads, were washed ashore on the "Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan". The Republic of China's New Atlas, published in China in 1933, treats the islands as part of Japan. In 1953, an article in the People's Daily newspaper refers to the Senkaku Islands as being one of seven groups of islands that make up the Ryukyu Islands, part of Japan. The World Atlas, published in the People's Republic of China in 1958 and reprinted in 1960, also treats the islands as part of Japan. In 1970, maps in official school textbooks in China showed the Senkaku Islands belonging to Japan.

In 1968, a UN body (ECAFE) reported research which indicated possible petroleum reserves in the East China Sea. Then, for the first time, in 1971 Chinese authorities began to assert their own claims regarding the Senkaku Islands. In 1971, the maps in official Chinese textbooks changed to show the Senkaku Islands as part of China's territory. China is now claiming the Senkaku Islands were returned to it after World War II under the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration. However, while Japan renounced Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores Islands in accordance with Article 2(b) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed in 1951, the Senkaku Islands were not included in these renounced territories. At the same time, in accordance with Article 3 of the treaty, the Senkaku Islands were placed under the administrative control of the US, along with Okinawa and other islands. These administrative rights formally reverted to Japan in 1972.

China raised no objections at all when the US took administrative control of the Senkaku Islands, including when the US military forces used them as a bombing range.

The explanation above shows that China is challenging the recognised post-World War II legal order. The turbulent situation caused by China's unfounded assertions is not just a bilateral issue between Japan and China, but also a matter of concern for the international community.

Of course, the Japan-China relationship is important and Japan will strive to develop a stable relationship between the countries. However, Japan must not yield to unjustifiable demands. If we do, not only would the standing of Japan in the eyes of the international community suffer, but also the rules and norms of the international community would be damaged.

The violent anti-Japanese protests which occurred recently throughout China cannot be condoned. They are also detrimental to China's interests which exist in the outstanding economic growth that can be realised as China opens itself up to the world.

It is critically important that China should behave more transparently and responsibly within the international community so it can contribute to the stability and prosperity of the region and the world.

Japan has the longest history as a democratic country in Asia and it is a country which respects universal values such as the rule of law and respect for human rights. Japan, as a peace-loving nation, has consistently made great contributions to peace and prosperity of Asia after World War II. This is indeed a hallmark of Japan supported by its people, and will never change.

As such, Japan will continue to collaborate with Australia as strategic partners in order to build a free, fair and transparent regional order.

Masahiro Kohara is the consul-general of Japan in Sydney

 

[trackwhack]

PLAN will get their collective asses kicked if they mess with Japan. CCP / PLA havent grown the balls for it yet. And before they do, Japan will go nuclear.