China and Japan dispute over Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,105
Likes
816
Country flag
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

The Chinese should not jump up in Ecstasy.

This is election year.

The Chinese American community comprises the largest ethnic group of Asian Americans, comprising 25.9% of the Asian American population as of 2010. Americans of Chinese descent, including those with partial Chinese ancestry constitute 1.2% of the total U.S. population as of 2010. According to the 2010 census, the Chinese American population numbered approximately 3.8 million. In 2010, half of Chinese-born people living in the United States lived either in California or New York.

This US Presidential election is a close affair and Obama requires every single vote in his favour.

He is popular with the ethnic minorities since he is not a white, no matter what one may say.

Therefore, no belligerent statements can be expected.

In so far as Japanese Americans are concerned, it has become the sixth largest group at roughly 1,304,286, including those of mixed-race or mixed-ethnicity and they are concentrated in Hawaii - one state!

However, in the future after the election, the US Administration will be singing a different song.
This song has been singing for 2 decades! It has nothing to do with election! It is the USA's strategy--keeping the heat but no fire!

The US strategic compulsions require a 'springboard' to oversee China's hegemonic ambitions in Asia and in the world so as to not become a challenge to the US.

So, which is the largest, committed springboard?

Japan.

And to add to that commitment is Japan's deep seated hatred for the Chinese, who the Japanese treat, unfairly, as sub human.

Things could not be better for the US!

Therefore, looking at the issue from a pure US perspective, Japan cannot be abandoned! ;) :)
Yes, japan cannot be abandoned. But japanese interest can be sacrificed! That is what Japanese fears!
 

G90

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
239
Likes
13
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

The catastrophe that started 81 years ago saw China suffer the worst humiliation by Japan. The huge power advantage has sustained Japan's contempt toward its neighbor. Even Tokyo's surrender didn't break its psychological advantage.

Sep 18 offers chance to reflect on war - Globaltimes.cn

Even the Chinese official newspaper admits how the Japanese feel that the Chinese are sub humans!
Lol, I find its funny that indians bring out this up, sure Chinese since ancient time refer to japs as wo-slaves/wo-monkeys, and japs, being a tributal state then, even adopt such quite unpleastant names, however after industrial age, as a revenege, the pissed japs call Chinese as zhi-na or whatever names, which mocking China as a object instead of the concept of a country.

As for sub-humans, lol, its really an unpleasant term only used by racists, however an unpleasant fact is among racists's eyes, at least for racists in east asia which I am familiar with, indians ranked very close to bottom, maybe above afrians.

As for the reason, thats because, first, in east asian culture(a.k.a the Chinese traditonal culture), they tend to pay high regards for human ethnics with higher intelligence capacity (thats why some jewish people were respected there), and they tend to pay high respects to human who spend more time working instead of talking, and they do prefer some racial features that found uncommon among indians as well.

Unfunately, it seems in general indians lack these traits that mentioned above, so all in all, thats why in these east asian racists eyes, indians are ranked quite low in the ladder, if you dont believe that, I can translate lots comments from them or provide you some direct links from your beloved average japanese BBS and let you go to see that by your own eyes.

Actually, even during WW2, the jap's wet dream was annexing China/Korea and get making india and SEA as their colony, and their so-called east-asia wet dream is based upon Confuicon's system which place they themselves as the "big brother", you can clearly say their preferences there.

So indians should get some spine, and instead of always wish someone else, this time, the japanese, to save you (which they themselves are close to a hopeless case here hehe), you should learn to be on your own,hehehe.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,133
Likes
23,719
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

Lol, I find its funny that indians bring out this up, sure Chinese since ancient time refer to japs as wo-slaves/wo-monkeys, and japs, being a tributal state then, even adopt such quite unpleastant names, however after industrial age, as a revenege, the pissed japs call Chinese as zhi-na or whatever names, which mocking China as a object instead of the concept of a country.

As for sub-humans, lol, its really an unpleasant term only used by racists, however an unpleasant fact is among racists's eyes, at least for racists in east asia which I am familiar with, indians ranked very close to bottom, maybe above afrians.

As for the reason, thats because, first, in east asian culture(a.k.a the Chinese traditonal culture), they tend to pay high regards for human ethnics with higher intelligence capacity (thats why some jewish people were respected there), and they tend to pay high respects to human who spend more time working instead of talking, and they do prefer some racial features that found uncommon among indians as well.

Unfunately, it seems in general indians lack these traits that mentioned above, so all in all, thats why in these east asian racists eyes, indians are ranked quite low in the ladder, if you dont believe that, I can translate lots comments from them or provide you some direct links from your beloved average japanese BBS and let you go to see that by your own eyes.

Actually, even during WW2, the jap's wet dream was annexing China/Korea and get making india and SEA as their colony, and their so-called east-asia wet dream is based upon Confuicon's system which place they themselves as the "big brother", you can clearly say their preferences there.

So indians should get some spine, and instead of always wish someone else, this time, the japanese, to save you (which they themselves are close to a hopeless case here hehe), you should learn to be on your own,hehehe.
Indeed isn't it funny that Indian bring this up?

One is aware that the Japanese did not find the Chinese worth to be taken as equal or even that they existed! Nothing new, really.

To be true, I am not a follower of Western Political Correctness where the word 'racist' is used as a 'catch all' for any old excuse. If the Japanese felt that the Chinese were sub human, so be it. It is nothing to do with being 'racist', it is merely being arrogant without cause.

The Chinese called Yues and others as 'barbarians'. I don't think that is racist. I think it is misplaced arrogance.

Indians are not ranked, as you claim ranked very close to bottom, maybe above afrians, it is the Chinese who were known as the Yellow Peril!
Further, I have appended enough of posts and links how uncivilised the Chinese can be and how gross they are in eating anything and everything. Therefore, from an international index, barbaric is what is epitomised by the Chinese in all forms. Your habits are crude, you eat anything from insects to genitals, and you don't even allow freedom to your people! Cvilised indeed!

Please don't compare yourselves with the ingenuity and intelligence of the Jews. You overrate yourselves. Copycats have no intelligence. They are merely devious in their crookedness and that is all.

Don't compare yourself with Japan. A postage stamp nation took on the world and kicked the living hell out of giant nation like China, and you have the audacity to gloat after 100 years of National Shame?

Very shameful indeed!

It is surprising that you talk of Indians growing a spine.

Look within. You are being kicked around the deck by small nations like Philippines, Vietnam and now Japan!

And you are shamelessly gloating!
 
Last edited:

niharjhatn

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
899
Likes
390
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

As for sub-humans, lol, its really an unpleasant term only used by racists, however an unpleasant fact is among racists's eyes, at least for racists in east asia which I am familiar with, indians ranked very close to bottom, maybe above afrians.

As for the reason, thats because, first, in east asian culture(a.k.a the Chinese traditonal culture), they tend to pay high regards for human ethnics with higher intelligence capacity (thats why some jewish people were respected there), and they tend to pay high respects to human who spend more time working instead of talking, and they do prefer some racial features that found uncommon among indians as well.
What, white skin, blue eyes and blonde hair? Lots of those over there!

I wonder how they feel, wandering their land, and seeing shrines built as a tribute to someone so low on their ladder.

As for the Japs "wet dream", it was far more angled towards occupying Australia than moving towards the East.
 

G90

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
239
Likes
13
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

Indeed isn't it funny that Indian bring this up?

One is aware that the Japanese did not find the Chinese worth to be taken as equal or even that they existed! Nothing new, really.

To be true, I am not a follower of Western Political Correctness where the word 'racist' is used as a 'catch all' for any old excuse. If the Japanese felt that the Chinese were sub human, so be it. It is nothing to do with being 'racist', it is merely being arrogant without cause.

The Chinese called Yues and others as 'barbarians'. I don't think that is racist. I think it is misplaced arrogance.

Indians are not ranked, as you claim ranked very close to bottom, maybe above afrians, it is the Chinese who were known as the Yellow Peril!
Further, I have appended enough of posts and links how uncivilised the Chinese can be and how gross they are in eating anything and everything. Therefore, from an international index, barbaric is what is epitomised by the Chinese in all forms. Your habits are crude, you eat anything from insects to genitals, and you don't even allow freedom to your people! Cvilised indeed!

Please don't compare yourselves with the ingenuity and intelligence of the Jews. You overrate yourselves. Copycats have no intelligence. They are merely devious in their crookedness and that is all.

Don't compare yourself with Japan. A postage stamp nation took on the world and kicked the living hell out of giant nation like China, and you have the audacity to gloat after 100 years of National Shame?

Very shameful indeed!

It is surprising that you talk of Indians growing a spine.

Look within. You are being kicked around the deck by small nations like Philippines, Vietnam and now Japan!

And you are shamelessly gloating!
Japan lose every war they fought with China for the last 2000 years, only begin to win war against China when industrial age come, and they adopt their then west master's tech to enjoy an upper hand.

As for being racists or not, well I could careless about whether you are a racist or not, I just merely point out that you are considered as quite near the bottom of the evoluation ladder by the vast majority of the "racists" (or whatever words you like to refer them to) in East asia, be it China, be it japan.

If you really like to learn more about these topics, I can give you the links from Japanese right wing's comments and translate that into english if you want, god-forbidden they even compare Chinese with you, which basically completely destory your very brittle ego if all your hope and self-esteem is built upon how their thinks about you and China vis-via,hahaha, thats why I find its ironic when you try to bring this topic out, its very funny,hehehe.
 

G90

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
239
Likes
13
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

What, white skin, blue eyes and blonde hair? Lots of those over there!

I wonder how they feel, wandering their land, and seeing shrines built as a tribute to someone so low on their ladder.

As for the Japs "wet dream", it was far more angled towards occupying Australia than moving towards the East.
Not really, in the ancient time the Chinese refer to the caucasians lived in the west border of China (by then, they were protected by Chinese from Huns) as hairy-savages, so I dont think they stand as the standard.

But there is no deny their light skin tune is a good feature, althrough there could be too much hair over there for our taste.

As for indians, well, they just dont have some features we like, not just skin color I mean, but you know thats just our taste, by no means a beauty standard.
 

G90

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
239
Likes
13
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

as for China being bullied by small countries like japan, philipines etc.

Well to be honest thats a novel theory, althrough usually China only have disputations with others over terrorities currently they have not controlled yet.
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,217
Likes
6,609
Country flag
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

Not really, in the ancient time the Chinese refer to the caucasians lived in the west border of China (by then, they were protected by Chinese from Huns) as hairy-savages, so I dont think they stand as the standard.

But there is no deny their light skin tune is a good feature, althrough there could be too much hair over there for our taste.

As for indians, well, they just dont have some features we like, not just skin color I mean, but you know thats just our taste, by no means a beauty standard.
I think you are talking out of your ass. I have dated East Asian girls, including mainland Chinese girls. What you are talking about might be "your" taste, I don't think everyone agrees with you. By the way, are you a girl? Or are you gay? Just curious...
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,322
Likes
11,607
Country flag
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

as for China being bullied by small countries like japan, philipines etc.

Well to be honest thats a novel theory, althrough usually China only have disputations with others over terrorities currently they have not controlled yet.
That small country Japan really screwed China not too long ago. Your parents and grandparents would recall that with "fond" memories.
 

nimo_cn

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
3,992
Likes
793
Country flag
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

Americans are simply playing lip services, they are apparently siding with Japan.

If CPC decides to have a war with Japan, then be prepared for the intervention of Americans, it is very likely that China has to face a Japan-US alliance in any war with Japan.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,438
Likes
5,371
Country flag
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

Is the U.S. Committed to Defend the Senkakus? Text of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty - Forbes

Bascially the US media denied any rumors that Japan media wanked so far about how their US boss will save their sorry ass over the diaoyu island dispute with China.:pound:

Things goes just preciously like I predicted, if the US wont fight for japan over diaoyu island against China, they certainly wont do that for their other cannon fodders a.k.a allies, lol

So someone's bubble dream has finally broken with cold-hard reality as we all know,hehehe

Good thing to know the US is wise and has made the right decision, unlike many stupid politicans around us,hehehe.:cool2:


Nice try. But don't kid yourself. While it is in America's (and the World's) interest to keep the peace in that region (specially not now with America's and the rest of the Worlds economies in dire strait), hence, will not throw fuel to the fire, it will certainly not seat idly by as China and its closest Pacific ally Japan slug it out near their borders.

Here are strategic considerations that far outweighs the every Chinese nationalist wet dream that the US will give more emphasis to Chinese sensibilities than the US-Japan alliance (sealed formalised by a MDT) in case of open hostilities between them:

1. If US does not come to Japan's aid in case of major conflict with China then it will throw into the trash can its alliance with Japan and with it its most important military base in the Pacific;

2. Japan will seek a crash nuclear arms option to restore strategic deterrence against China in the face of American abandonment. If this happens almost all the American allies that are facing strategic territorial/security issues with China (directly or indirectly) like Vietnam and the Philippines and South Korea (who also has territorial issues with Japan) will go nuclear. Then the rest of the neighbors in East and South East Asia will also go nuclear to maintain nuclear parity with their neighbors;

2. US inaction to help an ally in distress will destroy its status in Asia as the primary power, almost immediately its alliances will dissolve; and,

3. The most important, if the US does not run to the side of Japan in case of war with China (even limited) it will further embolden China and make it even more aggressive and assertive.

In other words, only China will be benefited by US inaction in case of open conflict between the latter and Japan (not the best strategy for the US if it is in danger of being eclipsed by China). The biggest loser may not even be Japan (for all I know Japan will easily crush any Chinese attempt to forcefully take the contested islands), it will be the US. So unless American strategic planners have your brain then I don't think they will just live Japan alone to deal with China. Besides, lets not forget that Japan is still America's second biggest foreign creditor after China and at the same time its 4th biggest trading partner.

The Chinese should not be too cocky about their economic weight for their neighbors only eagerly awaits for it commit a strategic blunder so that they can siphon off a lot of the Japanese DFI in China or other countries' DFI in China for that matter.

Anyway, this wet dream of yours is like the (then economically weakened) Western Eurpean Alliance looking the other way while Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia... Care to tell us who was benefited by that inaction?
 
Last edited:

mikhail

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
1,425
Likes
1,150
Country flag
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

Lol, I find its funny that indians bring out this up, sure Chinese since ancient time refer to japs as wo-slaves/wo-monkeys, and japs, being a tributal state then, even adopt such quite unpleastant names, however after industrial age, as a revenege, the pissed japs call Chinese as zhi-na or whatever names, which mocking China as a object instead of the concept of a country.

As for sub-humans, lol, its really an unpleasant term only used by racists, however an unpleasant fact is among racists's eyes, at least for racists in east asia which I am familiar with, indians ranked very close to bottom, maybe above afrians.

As for the reason, thats because, first, in east asian culture(a.k.a the Chinese traditonal culture), they tend to pay high regards for human ethnics with higher intelligence capacity (thats why some jewish people were respected there), and they tend to pay high respects to human who spend more time working instead of talking, and they do prefer some racial features that found uncommon among indians as well.

Unfunately, it seems in general indians lack these traits that mentioned above, so all in all, thats why in these east asian racists eyes, indians are ranked quite low in the ladder, if you dont believe that, I can translate lots comments from them or provide you some direct links from your beloved average japanese BBS and let you go to see that by your own eyes.

Actually, even during WW2, the jap's wet dream was annexing China/Korea and get making india and SEA as their colony, and their so-called east-asia wet dream is based upon Confuicon's system which place they themselves as the "big brother", you can clearly say their preferences there.

So indians should get some spine, and instead of always wish someone else, this time, the japanese, to save you (which they themselves are close to a hopeless case here hehe), you should learn to be on your own,hehehe.
come on mate you people couldn't even defeat a small country like Vietnam in the sino-Vietnam war and you are talking of vanquishing the Japanese people!:rofl:the last time you tried to vanquish somebody(read-the Vietnamese) you got some serious a** who**ing,so instead of ranting endlessly first try to relaim those islands froM Japan!then come here and start chest thumping my little friend:taunt:!
 

mikhail

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
1,425
Likes
1,150
Country flag
Re: US won't side with Japan against China over diaoyu island

Americans are simply playing lip services, they are apparently siding with Japan.

If CPC decides to have a war with Japan, then be prepared for the intervention of Americans, it is very likely that China has to face a Japan-US alliance in any war with Japan.
and you guys hope that you will be able to face both USA and Japan single-handedly!:shocked:the last time i checked china had border issues with India,Vietnam,Taiwan,South korea,Phillipines etc.so if a full fledged war take place between china and U.S.-Japan aaliance don't you think think that the other countries with whom you have border conflicts will remain silent!face the reality mate its not India but china who has been encircled with potential enemies all around:pound:!
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
23,635
Likes
17,101
Country flag
Treaty with Japan covers disputed islands: U.S. official

Treaty with Japan covers disputed islands: U.S. official "¹ Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion

WASHINGTON —
The uninhabited islets in the East China Sea at the center of a bitter dispute between China and Japan are "clearly" covered by a 1960 security treaty obliging the United States to come to Japan's aid if attacked, a top U.S. diplomat says.

"We do not take a position on the ultimate sovereignty of these islands," Kurt Campbell, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, told a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee.

Japan has controlled the rocky islets since 1895 - except during the 1945-1972 U.S. post-war occupation of Okinawa - and calls them the Senkakus. China, and rival Taiwan, maintain they have an older claim and call them the Diaoyu islands.

"We do acknowledge clearly ... that Japan maintains effective administrative control ... and, as such, this falls clearly under Article 5 of the Security Treaty," Campbell said at the panel's hearing on Asian territorial disputes.

He told the Senate subcommittee that recent violent anti-Japanese demonstrations in China and other actions that stoked tensions were a growing worry to the United States.

The long-standing territorial dispute bubbled over again last week when the Japanese government decided to nationalize some of the islands, buying them from a private Japanese owner.

"We are concerned ... by recent demonstrations, and, frankly, the potential for the partnership between Japan and China to fray substantially in this environment," said Campbell.

"That is not in our strategic interest and clearly would undermine the peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific as a whole," he added.

The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan was signed in 1960 as a successor to a 1951 bilateral security treaty and underpins what is seen as the most important of five U.S. treaty alliances in Asia.

Article 5 says "Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes."

The article also commits the allies to report "any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof" to the U.N. Security Council and to halt those actions once the Security Council takes steps to restore peace and security.

He said this stance on the islets is the same that has been articulated by American officials since 1997.

Subcommittee chairman Senator Jim Webb, a Virginia Democrat and veteran Asia military expert, urged the Obama administration
"to respond, carefully and fully" to Chinese actions in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, where China has other territorial disputes that have intensified in recent years.

"This threat has direct consequences for the United States," said Webb, who noted a declaration in 2004 by the George W. Bush administration and in 2010 by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the U.S. security treaty obligations extended to the disputed islets.

"Given the recent incursion by China into waters around the Senkaku Islands, it is vital that we continue to state clearly our obligations under this security treaty," he said.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,493
Likes
5,430
Country flag
Japan tried but failed to avert disaster in China dispute

The central government underestimated China's likely reaction to its Sept. 11 decision to purchase three disputed islands in the East China Sea and saw relations plummet despite a careful reckoning of the possible consequences.

Japanese officials drew up several dozens of scenarios for China's response, based on how Beijing handled a fishing boat collision with Japan Coast Guard vessels off the Senkaku Islands in 2010. China bore international criticism for penalties it imposed then, and Japan's government banked on a weak response from its Asian rival this time.

In an in-depth investigation, The Asahi Shimbun spoke to some of the central players in the diplomatic disaster.

Among the revelations: that the government felt it would be easier to act before China's impending leadership shakeup, and later to repair ties when Beijing's new leaders took power; and that Japan's government drew up—but shelved—possible plans to build on the islands.

On May 18, Noda summoned high-ranking government officials to an unpublicized meeting at the prime minister's office. He told them to prepare to purchase the islands from the private citizen who, under Japanese law, was the legal owner.

"Defending territory is fundamentally a government duty," Noda told them. "My government will fulfill the task, with a sense of responsibility."

Noda had been under pressure to decide what to do since April 16, when Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara declared, in a speech in Washington, that the Tokyo metropolitan government intended to buy the islands.

"Is there any problem with the Japanese people planning to defend Japanese national territory?" he asked, rhetorically.

High-ranking government officials who gathered in Noda's office on May 18 included Osamu Fujimura, chief Cabinet secretary; Hiroyuki Nagahama, deputy chief Cabinet secretary; Akihisa Nagashima, a special adviser to the prime minister; Kenichiro Sasae, vice foreign minister; and Chikao Kawai, assistant chief Cabinet secretary.

"It is more appropriate that the central government should buy the islands," Nagashima said, according to other people present. "We should announce that the purpose of doing so is to maintain and administer the islands in a peaceful and stable manner."

Sasae had earlier argued against the purchase: "We should leave it to the Tokyo metropolitan government, and tell China: 'The plan to buy the islands is merely what one local government is doing.'"

But Sasae did not oppose Nagashima's proposal.

So far, Noda had just been listening. Now he spoke up, and declared the central government should buy the islands.

Earlier, Noda had been more cautious.

When Ishihara visited the prime minister's office for talks on April 27, the Tokyo governor told Noda: "It should really be the central government that buys the islands." But Noda, at that meeting, was noncommittal.

Then, on April 29, when Noda and officials were aboard a flight to the United States for a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Nagashima told him: "It is reasonable that the central government should buy the islands."

Noda replied: "Well"¦," and nothing more.

But donations were filling a public subscription fund the Tokyo metropolitan government had set up for its own purchase bid.

"When the amount approached 1 billion yen (about $12.5 million), we felt the metropolitan government's purchase plan was becoming a reality," said an aide to Noda.

If the Tokyo metropolitan government had actually bought the islands, the Noda administration could have been criticized for being weak-kneed.

Meanwhile, the Chinese government was fully alert to the actions of the Tokyo governor, who has long been an outspoken critic of China.

Behind the scenes, Beijing sent Tokyo a message warning that if Ishihara bought the islands, it would cause irrevocable damage to Japan-China relations.

The Japanese government calculated that China would be less incensed if the national government bought them instead, according to a high-ranking government official.

But China's government saw it differently. It had hoped the Japanese government would snuff out the Tokyo government's ambition, and do no more than that.

The difference in expectations between China and Japan gradually widened.

As if forced into it by Ishihara, Noda leaned toward putting the islands in state ownership, while China wanted to maintain the status quo and opposed the purchase outright.

Faced with the twin pressures of Beijing and the Tokyo metropolitan government, the Japanese government prepared to get its checkbook out.

ISHIHARA'S BID

However, Noda's greatest obstacle was Ishihara, who was determined to beat the central government in a race to clinch a deal first.

For about 30 years--ever since he had been a Lower House lawmaker--Ishihara had nurtured a dream of owning the islands. In March this year, Ishihara called the islands' owner, an acquaintance, and asked: "Can I announce that you are going to sell Senkaku Islands to the Tokyo metropolitan government?"

"If you can take responsibility for the announcement, please do so," the owner replied.

A month later, Ishihara revealed the purchase bid during his speech in Washington, and there was a sharp increase in public donations.

"The Tokyo metropolitan government was leading the central government 10-0," recalled an aide to Noda.

However, there would be a delay. The metropolitan government would be unable to give the owner a purchase price until autumn because necessary preparations included a real-estate appraisal and council work. The central government understood this, and dashed for the finish line.

Once Noda had given the purchase instruction at the May 18 meeting, Nagahama contacted the owner.

The owner responded favorably, and on July 7 Noda revealed the plan publicly for the first time.

"We will consider buying the Senkaku Islands from the viewpoint of administering them in a peaceful and stable manner," Noda told reporters that day.

The land ministry conducted a real estate appraisal, and in late July Fujimura told Noda that the purchase price would be about 2 billion yen.

"OK. At that price, go ahead," Noda said.

The government presented the owner with a pledge of "2 billion yen," a figure trumping that of the Tokyo metropolitan government's by several hundred million yen. The central government thus became the main bidder.

Ishihara asked the central government for a meeting with Noda. The government accepted his request.

The meeting was held unannounced, at the prime minister's office on Aug. 19.

In the meeting, Ishihara demanded that Noda build port facilities on the islands.

"I will cooperate with the central government's purchase plan," he said. "But I want the central government to construct infrastructure."

Noda replied: "Let me consider your request."

Meanwhile, the central government rejected a bid by the metropolitan government to land a survey team on the Senkakus.

On Sept. 3, the central government reached an agreement to buy the three islands for 2.05 billion yen. The next day, Nagashima, a special adviser to Noda, visited Ishihara's home, and told the governor the central government could not meet his request for a port on the Senkakus.

"All the Noda administration can do is to place the islands in state ownership," Nagashima said.

But the truth is, the central government had indeed examined constructing facilities such as a port and a lighthouse. It had drawn up eight plans, labeled A to H, depending on facilities required.

Some had argued structures would be necessary, not just to save Ishihara's face, but to strengthen overall administration of the islands. At one time, Noda had supported the idea.

However, the central government worried about possible Chinese opposition. Eventually, it shelved all construction plans and settled for becoming the islands' owner, not their developer.

SCENARIOS DRAFTED

China expressed strong opposition to Ishihara's purchase plan.

"It is a political show by a right-wing politician," said the Chinese state-run Xinhua News Agency.

Even though donations had increased to the public-subscription fund, China believed the Japanese government would ultimately kill Ishihara's purchase bid, according to a high-ranking official of China's foreign ministry department overseeing Japan affairs.

Beijing held this view because it believed Japan and China had of late been maintaining sufficient dialogue to head off problems. They agreed to improve communications after relations took a hit in 2010, when a Chinese fishing boat collided with Japan Coast Guard vessels off the Senkakus.

But differences between the two sides rapidly became apparent.

On May 13, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao met Noda for talks in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, where he asserted that the Senkaku Islands were Chinese territory.

Noda responded, saying: "China's increasing maritime activity, including in areas near the Senkakus, offends the feelings of the Japanese people."

On June 11, Japan and China convened a meeting at the vice-ministerial level in a hotel near Lake Yamanakako in Yamanashi Prefecture.

"Japan should firmly block measures that damage the two countries' political foundations," demanded Zhang Zhijun, China's vice foreign minister.

But Sasae, the Japanese vice foreign minister, hinted at the islands' possible purchase.

"It is important to maintain and administer the Senkaku Islands in a peaceful and stable manner," he said.

On July 7, Noda announced that the Japanese government would consider nationalizing the islands.

As far as China was concerned, not only was this an escalation, the timing seemed singularly inappropriate.

It was the 75th anniversary of the so-called Marco Polo Bridge Incident in Beijing, which led ultimately to the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945).

The timing hardened China's stance.

"Is the Japanese government really going to play the main character in a farce by Ishihara? He is pressuring the Japanese government, with the ultimate aim of the islands' nationalization," commented Xinhua.

Four days later, three fishery surveillance ships entered Japanese territorial waters near the Senkaku Islands. On Aug. 15, activists from Hong Kong managed to land on one. Anti-Japan demonstrations spread throughout China in late August.

Meanwhile, the Japanese government had tried to calculate China's possible reaction.

It drew up several dozen scenarios, covering areas from politics and economics to private-sector exchanges and military affairs.

The scenarios were largely based on the aftermath of the 2010 collision between a Chinese fishing boat and Japan Coast Guard vessels. Japanese authorities arrested the boat's captain and sent him to prosecutors.

China struck back. It restricted exports of rare earth metals to Japan, and temporarily detained employees of one Japanese company.

The international community weighed in, condemning China. So the Japanese prime minister's office calculated that this time China would stop short of such retaliation.

Japan's Foreign Ministry was less sure. It had noted the growth of anti-Japan movements in China, and some of its officials urged caution.

"It may be better for the central government to let the Tokyo metropolitan government buy the islands, and keep the Japanese state out of the equation," said one Foreign Ministry official at a meeting of government officials in Noda's office in late August.

Noda dismissed the suggestion.

"As we have said, the central government should buy them," he replied.

NODA SURPRISED

Japan's government decided it would proceed during a Cabinet meeting on Sept. 11. It aimed to make the decision before the expected party congress this autumn of China's Communist Party, which will hand power from President Hu Jintao to a new leadership headed by Xi Jinping.

"If we finalize the Senkaku issue during Hu Jintao's era, we can then repair relations after the new leadership is established," said one of Noda's aides. "The worst timing would be to purchase the islands after the new leadership takes power."

Because China's new leadership would still have weak foundations, officials figured it would be more tempted to lash out at an easy foreign target like Japan.

Moreover, Japan's government was in a hurry to buy the islands because it feared the owner might walk away and knock once more on Ishihara's door, said a high-ranking government official.

In late August, Parliamentary Senior Vice Foreign Minister Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi visited China and delivered Noda's letter to Dai Bingguo, a state councilor, a rank roughly equivalent to vice premier.

"It is extremely important to maintain close communications at the highest political levels," the letter read.

Initially, China welcomed that. "This move shows the Noda administration's eagerness for dialogue," wrote The Global Times, a newspaper focusing on international relations.

But a foreign ministry official then expressed disappointment.

"The letter merely explained Japan's basic stance," the official said. "It offered no initiatives to improve the situation."

On Sept. 9, two days before the Japanese government's final decision, Noda and Hu stood in conversation on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vladivostok, Russia. It was an informal meeting, not an official one.

Noda began by expressing heartfelt sympathy for the victims of an earthquake that had struck China's Yunnan province on Sept. 7.

Hu's response: "It is illegal to nationalize the Senkaku Islands."

"I want to deal with it from a broad perspective," Noda replied.

Hu told Noda: "Japan must fully recognize the seriousness of the situation. It should not make an error."

But on Sept. 11, as scheduled, Noda's Cabinet formalized the purchase.

A Chinese foreign ministry official reacted with apparent anger.

"The Noda administration did not understand the weight of the words we asked our president to express," the official said. "At the very least, it should have been able to delay the decision."

In China, anti-Japan protests intensified. Demonstrators attacked Japanese factories and retail outlets.

Noda turned angrily to his aides. "Is the Chinese government going to tacitly approve 'yakiuchi'?" he said, using a Japanese word for military-style arson used in battle.

Today, the prime minister's office has the ongoing problem of how to handle Chinese patrol ships in waters off the Senkaku Islands. About half of Japan's coast guard cutters have been dispatched there, and are tied up in monitoring the flotilla.

"For the time being, coast guard crews are just going to be kept exhausted," admitted a high-ranking government official.

However, Noda has instructed Defense Minister Satoshi Morimoto not to dispatch Self-Defense Force ships. "Just keep monitoring it, in the conventional way," he said.

Japan seems aware of the risk of escalation.

In talks with Luo Zhaohui, his Beijing counterpart, Shinsuke Sugiyama, head of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau of the Japanese Foreign Ministry said: "Japan and China will be in a serious situation if they cross the red line."

That red line means a situation that may require the use of force.

"This situation will last for a fairly long period," said one Japanese government official involved in the purchase decision. "Neither Japan nor China can change its stance. We must prepare ourselves for that."

INSIDE LOOK: Japan tried but failed to avert disaster in China dispute - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,841
But donations were filling a public subscription fund the Tokyo metropolitan government had set up for its own purchase bid.

"When the amount approached 1 billion yen (about $12.5 million), we felt the metropolitan government's purchase plan was becoming a reality," said an aide to Noda.
Japanese nationalistic provocations are being countered by Chinese nationalistic wrath. Why would Chinese eat the humble pie?


Potsdam Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On July 26, the United States, Britain and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay." For Japan, the terms of the declaration specified:[1]
the elimination "for all time [of] the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest"
the occupation of "points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies"
"Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine." As had been announced in the Cairo Declaration in 1943.[3]
"The Japanese military forces shall be completely disarmed"
"stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners"
 

average american

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
1,540
Likes
438
China is starting to look like a bully. The best way to stop a bully is to stand up to them and its better to do it sooner than later. The way China is going they are going to cause Japan to rearm and develope nuclear weapons.

Even Taiwan has made attempts to organize production of plutonium on an experimental basis. Imported nuclear technologies, knowledge, and equipment do not enable Taiwan to create nuclear weapons, but do provide the necessary basis for work in the nuclear field and may accelerate nuclear weapons development, if such a decision is made. By 1974 the US Central Intelligence Agency concluded that "Taipei conducts its small nuclear program with a weapon option clearly in mind, and it will be in a position to fabricate a nuclear device after five years or so
 
Last edited:

Tolaha

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
2,158
Likes
1,410
The Asian sympathy is with Japan this time. WW2 happened more than 60 years ago and roles has been reversed. China is now the bully.
True. China has indeed put its heart but not much of mind in achieving this distinction! The future maybe decided by who is more dumber... US Department of State or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC! And MFA is showing all the signs of a winner in this game! :troll:
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top