/

China set summit precondition for Japan: Declare no-entry zone around Senkakus

Kyodo

As a condition for holding a Sino-Japanese summit amid a dispute over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, Beijing demanded after Tokyo effectively nationalized the islets last September that Japan acknowledge a territorial dispute exists and agree on a 12-nautical-mile no-entry zone around the territory, sources said Friday.

Japan rejected such demands for “shelving” the dispute over ownership of the uninhabited Japanese-controlled islets, which are claimed by China and known there as Diaoyu, according to the sources, who are involved in bilateral relations.

Tokyo’s position is that the islets are historically part of Japan and thus no dispute exists over the territory, which it initially placed under its control in 1895.

Japan and China have not held a summit for more than a year and talks have been suspended on an official agreement to build a “maritime liaison mechanism” to avoid an accidental clash.

A year ago, Japanese and Chinese defense officials had agreed to start such talks.

Amid rising tensions and fearing a possible clash around the islets after the Japanese government’s purchase of three of the five Senkaku islets from a private Japanese owner last September, Tokyo had by last December sent Vice Foreign Minister Chikao Kawai and Shinsuke Sugiyama, head of the Foreign Ministry’s Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau, separately to China.

They made diplomatic efforts to help the Japanese and Chinese leaders reach an agreement on the maritime liaison mechanism, including a hotline, which was largely agreed upon in working-level talks last June.

Even after the change of government last December with the inauguration of the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, China has continued to call for Japan to acknowledge that a territorial dispute exists as a precondition for holding a summit.

Diplomatic talks by high-level officials of the two countries have also been suspended, tripartite summit talks involving Japan, China and South Korea expected to be held this spring were not held, and Japan-China diplomacy has remained deadlocked.

  • Masa Chekov

    China would never do this same thing, so why should Japan agree to it?

    • Neighbor U-Dunno

      It is simply because Diaoyu Islands ave been part of China since ancient time — at least since 1403. Japan faked the claim in January 1895 without letting any nation or individual know of the thief.

      Renaming it does not make a stolen property yours!!

      Even Japan’s own navigation book showed the isles to be part of China. Go look for for yourself. 1783 historical document, Sankoku Tsūran Zusetsu, published by prominent military scholar Hayashi Shihei stated the area a part of China.

      Japan falsely claims its purported “discovery in 1884″ of the Diaoyu Islands as a group of uninhibited isles in the East China Sea.

      • Casper Steuperaert

        The islets were know by both countries. But before 1895 they were terra nullius. They belonged to no-one and then to Japan. And they are right. There is no territorial dispute, they don’t belong to China

      • Neighbor U-Dunno

        Know your history and international laws!! Here are some fact:

        Islands without inhabitants are not necessary “terra nullius.” There are many islands in the Pacific, or other oceans for that matter, have no private owner and/or active living quarters. In fact, Japan has many of them, so do Indonesia, The Philippines and many other nations.

        Japan’s claim is really frivolous at best. Its attempt of renaming and stealing of the Diaoyu Islands prior to the unannounced annexation in 1895 was rejected by its own court due to consideration of questionable legality and potential protest from China’s Qing Government. Japan’s militarist nevertheless went ahead to carry out the illegal unilateral act anyway.

        Japan’s claim, in part, is based on another illegal act by the proclamation of the US occupation (neither authorized by Washington nor done within its jurisdiction), i.e. USCAR No. 27, issued on December 25, 1953, to give away administrative control to Japan the territory without the knowledge or consent of its sovereign owner, China, in violation of the U.N. Charters.

        Japan’s unconditional surrender at the end of WWII and its signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 obligates it to adhere to all terms and conditions of the Peace Treaty as well as the Potsdam Declaration and the Cairo Declaration to the letter.

        San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951:

        Article 10

        Japan renounces all special rights and interests in China, including all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final Protocol signed at Peking on 7 September 1901, and all annexes, notes and documents supplementary thereto, and agrees to the abrogation in respect to Japan of the said protocol, annexes, notes and documents.

        Article 21

        Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 25 of the present Treaty, China shall be entitled to the benefits of Articles 10 and 14(a)2; and Korea to the benefits of Articles 2, 4, 9 and 12 of the present Treaty.
        —-
        Potsdam Declaration:

        “[Article] 8. The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.”
        —-

        Cairo Declaration:

        “Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning
        of the first World War in 1914, and 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. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.”

      • Casper Steuperaert

        The islands were named long before the Japanese annexed them. But they were never a part of China or anyone before 1895. It’s not because you named the islands first that they are yours. China never annexed the Senkakus. So the Cairo Declaration is of no significance when it comes to the Sekakus, as they were annexed not by greed (since it belonged to no-one) nor by violence. How could it be greed? The only inhabitants were Japanese fishermen for a small period.

      • Christopher-trier

        If you truly wish to follow international law, then the People’s Republic of China has no claim on the Sankaku Islands. Nor, for that matter, would Japan. The islands would go to an independent Taiwan. The transfer of sovereignty over Taiwan from Japan to China was done illegally. The Taiwanese were never consulted. The Cairo Declaration, by virtue of not consulting the residents of the specified territories, is illegitimate and has no legal legitimacy.

      • Jurippe

        Good Lord, the first rule of International Law is that it’s not binding. That’s the first thing they bring up when you study international law.

      • justice_first

        These islands were not only “known” by China (before 1895). There are obviously much much more than “knowing”. You have ignored all the critical historic facts before 1895, as Japan is trying to do.

        No one should wipe off all the history before 1895, as if nothing happened. China discovered, named, used the islands in many ways, such as maritime defense, fishing grounds( by mainly Chinese fishermen), navigation marker, diplomatic missions to the Ryukyu Kingdom, delineation of national border with Ryukyu, Administration by jurisdiction assigned to Fujian and Taiwan ( recorded in Gazetteers of Taiwan before 1895), officially claimed by imperial envoys as Chinese territories, over a period of over 500 years. History must not be completely ignored as if western law were the only legal system in 1895.

      • justice_first

        Japan claimed the islands were Terra Nullius, but it cannot prove it with any evidence. Terra Nullius was a term used by the western colonial powers to justify seizing of territories, and japan was following the west in colonizing East and South East Asian from late 1800 to 1945.

        The the end and defeat of Japan in 1945 is a determining factor: all conquered territories, by violence and greed, must return to their previous status (before 1895).

        China has a lot more convincing evidence that the islands were not Terra Nullius, and China claimed the islands long before the Japanese “discovered” them in 1884. Japan apparently has none of those historic arguments.

      • Christopher-trier

        Yet, at the same time, a populated area cannot be transferred from one power to another without the consent of those who reside in the territory. Even Hong Kong’s retro-cession was a legal grey zone. You seem to not understand that no one in this situation is acting fully within international laws.

      • Masa Chekov

        The legitimacy of the Japanese claim to the Senkakus is not the crux of what I posted. Please do not spam my comments with this sort of talk as you have done on several posts; I am not interested in debating this point with you.

        What I SAID is that China would never agree to such terms for a meeting, so why should Japan? As in, imagine that some other nation wished to meet with China but put a precondition of “China must admit there is a dispute over the independence of Tibet” on holding the meeting? It would never happen.

        So should Japan not agree to such conditions.

      • Spudator

        As in, imagine that some other nation wished to meet with China but put a precondition of “China must admit there is a dispute over the independence of Tibet” on holding the meeting?

        This isn’t what’s going on here at all. Thanks to the revelations by former chief Cabinet Secretary Hiromu Nonaka, the world now knows for a fact that, despite Japan’s lies on the matter, there is a dispute between China and Japan over who has claim to the islands. The two countries agreed in 1972 to “shelve” the dispute (hard to shelve something that doesn’t exist) by each turning a blind eye to the issue and not doing anything, like occupying the islands or changing their legal status, to assert a claim to them.

        This agreement to let sleeping dogs lie was doing fine until then Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara, driven by his ridiculous delusions that Japan is some kind of world superpower, decided he wanted to show China who was boss by buying the islands for Tokyo. This had the national government running around in a panic like a headless chicken, finally deciding that the only way to contain the situation and prevent China’s fury from raining down on Japan was to nationalise the islands. Nationalisation didn’t work: the Chinese were furious anyway. And who can blame them? There was a tacit agreement in place between the two countries, but Japan decided it was no longer prepared to honour that agreement.

        Obviously, if Japan was no longer willing to forgo asserting a claim to the islands, China saw no reason to refrain from claiming them either and has been making it clear ever since that the islands are Chinese territory, much to Japan’s discomfiture. Japan’s response has been depressingly true to form—denial and lies. It’s denied there’s a territorial dispute and it’s lied about there ever having been an agreement between Japan and China over the issue.

        What the Chinese are now trying to do is to get Japan to stop lying. They’ve had enough of Japan’s lies over its various past misdeeds (haven’t we all?) and want it to at least be honest about this one thing—the Senkakus dispute. In insisting that Japan acknowledge there’s a territorial dispute and impose an exclusion zone around the islands, they want Japan to make public and official what was agreed behind closed doors back in 1972 and to re-establish the policy of treating the islands as off limits. That’s all. They’re not trying to gain an unfair negotiating advantage: they’re trying to get Japan to come clean on an issue that both countries know is very real and to behave as it originally promised to.

        That article I link to above has this to say about what Liu Yunshan, one of the Chinese Communist Party leaders, thinks about the issue:

        Liu is said to have told the delegation that Japan is responsible for the current confrontation with China. Apparently aiming to have Japan acknowledge at least the existence of a bilateral territorial dispute, Liu also reportedly said he hopes to see a solution reached through dialogue between the two governments.

        The key phrase here is “aiming to have Japan acknowledge at least the existence of a bilateral territorial dispute”. By its latest move of setting preconditions for a summit meeting, China is trying to get Japan to finally make that acknowledgement. So far Japan has shown its usual intransigence. China is now starting to ratchet up the pressure on Japan to do the right thing.

      • Neighbor U-Dunno

        Islands without inhabitants are not necessary “terra nullius.” There are many islands in the Pacific, or other oceans for that matter, have no private owner and/or active living quarters. In fact, Japan has many of them, so do Indonesia, The Philippines and other nations.

        Japan’s claim is really frivolous at best. Its attempt of renaming and stealing of the Diaoyu Islands prior to the unannounced annexation in 1895 was rejected by its own court due to consideration of questionable legality and potential protest from China’s Qing Government. Japan’s militarist nevertheless went ahead to carry out the illegal unilateral act anyway.

        Japan’s claim, in part, is based on another illegal act by the proclamation of the US occupation (neither authorized by Washington nor done within its jurisdiction), i.e. USCAR No. 27, issued on December 25, 1953, to give away administrative control to Japan the territory without the knowledge or consent of its sovereign owner, China, in violation of the U.N. Charters.

        Japan’s unconditional surrender at the end of WWII and its signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 obligates it to adhere to all terms and conditions of the
        Peace Treaty as well as the Potsdam Declaration and the Cairo Declaration to the letter (details see below):

        San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951:

        Article 10

        Japan renounces all special rights and interests in China, including all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final Protocol signed at Peking on 7 September 1901, and all annexes, notes and documents supplementary thereto, and agrees to the abrogation in
        respect to Japan of the said protocol, annexes, notes and documents.

        Article 21

        Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 25 of the present Treaty, China shall be entitled to the benefits of Articles 10 and 14(a)2; and Korea to the benefits of Articles 2, 4, 9 and 12 of the present Treaty.

        Potsdam Declaration

        “[Article] 8. The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall
        be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.”

        Cairo Declaration

        “Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning
        of the first World War in 1914, and 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. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed.”

      • Masa Chekov

        One man says there is a dispute. Others say the opposite. I don’t believe the word of one man with an agenda. Apparently you do.

      • Spudator

        I have to assume you only read the last couple of paragraphs of my post and so missed the link to the article about former chief Cabinet Secretary Hiromu Nonaka in the first paragraph. In that article Nonaka is quoted as saying the following about a 1972 deal to normalise relations with China:

        Just after the normalization of relations, I was told clearly by then-Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka that a decision was made on the normalization by shelving the Senkaku issue [emphasis added]. As a living witness, I would like to make clear (what I heard).

        So, according to Nonaka, the Senkakus were indeed a bone of contention between the two countries at one time, but in the interests of normalising relations, the dispute was set aside.

        Now while you may not give any credence to Liu Yunshan’s remarks because you think he has an agenda (Why? Because he’s Chinese? And because only Japanese politicians can be trusted not to have an agenda?), surely you can’t dismiss Nonaka’s statement. That part about his being a living witness to Tanaka’s words seems to me to make the whole statement rather compelling.

        But, of course, it’s just the word of one man.

      • Masa Chekov

        “according to Nonaka”

        ” surely you can’t dismiss Nonaka’s statement”

        Oh yes I can. And I will. He’s an old man remembering words spoken 40 years ago. I put very little trust in anything he thinks he heard then.

        It’s also irrelevant.

      • Spudator

        Memory is a strange thing: trivial events can remain stuck in your head forever, while important events are forgotten the day after they happen. And vice versa. How the brain chooses what to remember and what to forget is still a mystery. However, one quirk of memory that is well understood—especially by those of us with more years under our belts than we care to admit—is that it’s quite common to be able to recall events of, say, forty years ago with complete clarity, while what happened last week is a blank. I’m afraid your notion that the trustworthiness of a memory is inversely proportional to how long its been in the brain, and that the memories of an old man like Hiromu Nonaka are therefore not to be given credence, simply doesn’t reflect reality.

        According to your logic, it wouldn’t be possible, for example, to prosecute historic crimes like those involving World War II concentration camp guards because the witnesses—in this case, those who were prisoners at the time—would be deemed too old to properly remember events from so long ago and their testimony wouldn’t be considered dependable. However, trials for such historic crimes do occur (occasionally, at least) because it’s recognised that some events leave such an indelible impression on the memory that a witness’s age needn’t be an issue.

        And as for your assertion that Nonaka’s memories are irrelevant—well, now you’re not making sense at all. Here’s a man who was close to those politicians involved in normalising relations with China back in 1972; who would have taken a keen professional interest in events as they unfolded at the time; and who must have carefully followed developments—filing away facts and details in his head (or even in a journal) and mulling that information over and discussing it with colleagues. A clear set of recollections regarding everything that happened would have been seared into his memory. If anyone has anything relevant to say about the issue, it’s this man. To dismiss him out of hand is preposterous. That you choose to do so makes me very suspicious of your motives.

        Let’s face it: this is nothing to do with Nonaka’s age or the relevancy of his statement about the Senkakus dispute. You simply don’t want to hear what he’s saying because it undermines your position that a dispute doesn’t exist. And it’s not surprising you’d rather not acknowledge him: whereas you have a theory about the issue, he has actual facts, and those facts refute your theory. It’s a shame you attempt to get out of this difficulty by discrediting Nonaka with an ad hominem attack: the man’s practically senile; he’s obviously talking nonsense, followed by, he can’t possibly know anything of importance; trust me. Is that really the best you can do?

        You know, I have to smile at the way you’re trying to wriggle off the hook here. A few days ago, you were leaping to the defence of another old-timer—mountaineer Yuichiro Miura—over criticisms that, in his recent ascent of Mount Everest, he cheated by using a helicopter on the way back down. Perhaps you felt the criticisms were motivated by ageism and you wanted to take a stand against such prejudice. Now we find you’re guilty of ageism yourself. The double standards are delightful: you obviously consider Miura, in spite of his age, to be full of vitality and someone to be admired, whereas Nonaka, because of hs age is a clapped-out old codger to be treated with disdain.

        Instead of changing your fundamental thinking as and when needed to suit your argument, and so making yourself look like an intellectual charlatan, I think you need to make your mind up: are elderly people worthy of our respect or are they not? You can’t have it both ways.

      • Masa Chekov

        “If anyone has anything relevant to say about the issue, it’s this man. To dismiss him out of hand is preposterous. That you choose to do so makes me very suspicious of your motives.”

        I dismiss him out of hand because he is the ONLY man who says this. Not because I disagree with him. One man’s recollections of facts from 40 years ago – recollections disputed by others – make them irrelevant.

        And what are “my motives”?

        “Instead of changing your fundamental thinking as and when needed to suit your argument, and so making yourself look like an intellectual charlatan”

        Go away, seriously. If you are going to insult me, just go away, and don’t bother to reply.

      • Spudator

        One man’s recollections of facts from 40 years ago – recollections disputed by others – make them irrelevant.

        How does a forty-year gap between facts being committed to memory and being recalled make the recollection of those facts irrelevant? The recollections are only irrelevant if they’re wrong, and I’ve already explained to you at length why I think that’s unlikely to be the case here. So why, instead of responding to my explanation, do you merely repeat this non sequitur about irrelevancy? I heard you the first time; your repeating yourself doesn’t constitute elaboration, much less proof of the veracity of your assertion. I admit you’ve added that bit about others disputing Nonaka’s recollections; but even that’s a repetition of another assertion in which you neglected, as you do now, to say who those others are and why we should believe them over Nonaka. Your whole argument consists of nothing but repeated, unsubstantiated assertions.

        If you can prove to me that Nonaka’s recollections are wrong by, instead of trying to discredit the man, providing facts that contradict his statements, I’ll take what you have to say seriously. But if you think I’m going to believe mere assertions, in spite of your repeating them, and particularly when they amount to little more than an ad hominem attack on Nonaka, I’m afraid you’re mistaken.

        And what are “my motives”?

        By saying I’d become suspicious of your motives, I meant I felt your motives weren’t sincere—that you weren’t being honest in your insistence that a dispute between China and Japan didn’t exist. In other words, I felt you had an—ahem—agenda. But what that agenda is, I haven’t the foggiest. Why don’t you tell me? Are you an apologist for Japan? A nationalist? A China basher? What are you? I’m not saying you’re one of these kinds of person; but in reading your many Japan-can-do-no-wrong posts, in which you berate anyone who has the temerity to criticise Japan, I find myself wondering.

        Go away, seriously. If you are going to insult me, just go away, and don’t bother to reply.

        I’m not insulting you (had I been doing so, I’d have been modded); perhaps you should read my words more carefully before getting into such a tizzy over a non-existent slight. I didn’t accuse you of being an intellectual charlatan: I said that the way you argue, by changing your thinking to suit whatever point you’re trying to make or refute, makes you look like a charlatan. And indeed it does: one minute you’re rah-rahing an elderly man; the next, you’re giving one of his peers the Bronx cheer; yet in both cases your justification is the same: the men’s age. But whether your doublethink is a stratagem or a slip-up, I don’t know, although one generally views double standards with suspicion. So maybe you’re guilty of trying to pull a fast one with your reasoning, maybe you’re not; that’s probably something only you, after some honest introspection, can answer.

        The funny thing about all this is that, in my choice of words, I was trying to be as objective as possible in order to stop you flying off the handle the way you have. When I referred to intellectual charlatanism (and by that I meant a person’s pretending to reason correctly while knowing that the reasoning is false), what was actually in my mind was much less flattering. And since you’ve been so brutally honest as to tell me to get lost for daring to take you to task over your double standard, I don’t see why I shouldn’t now be equally honest. What I was really thinking was that you were a hypocrite, affecting moral superiority by feigning to be a champion of the elderly until, when you expressed your true feelings of contempt for old people, your mask finally slipped. Let me emphasise that that’s simply a frank disclosure of how my mind reacted at the time; it’s not intended to be an accusation or an insult. I’ll leave you to reflect on how fitting it is.

      • justice_first

        well said again.

      • justice_first

        v well said. congratulation for such a good piece.

      • Spudator

        Thank you for your kind words; I’m glad you enjoyed the post. I’m afraid I drifted a bit off topic with all my talk about memory and whether an elderly person’s recollections are reliable or not; but given that Hiromu Nonaka, old though he is, has actual experience of the events of 1972—unlike present-day politicians—I felt it important to defend him. His memories constitute actual historical data that put the the Senkakus issue in context.

        Thanks again for your support. I appreciate it.

      • justice_first

        Masa, the real issue is : is there a dispute or not ? This is a fundamental question. If they cannot even agree on this point, there is no point to meet in the first place. The purpose of the meeting is to talk about a dispute. A precondition in this case is reasonable for the top people to meet. Why is it so difficult for Japan to admit that there is a dispute with China ? Is Japan afraid of even admitting ? This certainly gives people an impression of fear, because mere admitting of a dispute is no big deal. To claim there if no dispute is silly because the whole world can see a dispute going on.

        Why is Japan so fearful of admitting the fact ? This has given China a clear edge and “righteousness” to its case.

      • Masa Chekov

        No, it doesn’t give China anything. There is no dispute over Okinawa either, much as PRC would like there to be.

        Go ask China if there is a dispute over Taiwan, see their response.

      • justice_first

        There is a dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands between China and Japan.

        There is none over Taiwan. Okinawa/Ryukyu is a separate issue because a dispute has not yet appeared although there is still an outstanding question of sovereignty of the Ryukyu Islands.

      • Masa Chekov

        No, there is absolutely no dispute whatsoever over Okinawa. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nothing at all.

        This is exactly what I am talking about, and exactly why Japan should never agree to any conditions like China wants to set. Let’s talk Tibetan and Taiwan independence, while we’re on controversial topics?

      • justice_first

        The islands are not part of the Ryukyu Islands, and Ryukyu is not part of Japan as far as sovereignty is concerned.

      • Masa Chekov

        See? Let China open the discussion and you get nonsense like this. Okinawa and the rest of the Ryukyus are indisputably Japanese. Everyone agrees on this.

      • justice_first

        Masa, you have forgotten that discussion, or dialogue, is a two way street.

        If Japan wants to show the Ryukyus japanese, Japan can produce the necessary proof during any discussion relating to the disputed islands. This is the civilized way for any international negotiation.

      • Masa Chekov

        Japan doesn’t need to show the Ryukyus are Japanese any more than China needs to show Beijing is Chinese. They are Japanese, and they are internationally recognized as Japanese.

        There is no dialogue here. No negotiation. It’s like discussing if water is wet. Of course it is, and everyone agrees it is.

      • justice_first

        No, it is not true that there is formal international recognition that the Ryukyu is part of Japan. When you look at the post war order (1945) based on the Potsdam Declaration, japan’s sovereignty was “clearly” confined to the four main islands of Japan, and does not include the Ryukyu, nor the Senkaku(Diaoyu). The US has no right to give sovereignty of the Ryukyu to japan in 1972, because the US never owned them. Ryukyu should in fact be given back to the people of the Ryukyu, as Korea was given back to the Korean. This is clearly the post war order that even the US has to comply. The US didn’t, as we know. China has no reason to recognize the Ryukyu as part of Japan because China was not signatory to the SFPT, nor Russia.

        If you have studied history more closely, you would have known it.

      • Masa Chekov

        justice_first, I will repeat myself since you seem to not be getting the point. Nobody disputes the Ryukyus are Japanese. They are internationally recognized to be so. There’s no dispute here.

        Especially since they were never in any way Chinese, China’s objection or non-objection to their status is totally irrelevant.

      • justice_first

        Masa, you may repeat a thousand times the Ryukyus are Japanese. But, the (historic) fact flies in your face, that Japan does not “own” the Ryukyus, according to the its instrument of surrender. China, as a responsible member of the UN, has an obligation to raise the issue.

        The Ryukyus are presently only “occupied” by the US and Japan. Their legal status and sovereignty is of geopolitical interest to the world, and to China.

        The Ryukyu Kingdom used to be a tributary state to China (for centuries). China has a legitimate right to revisit the issue at the appropriate time.

      • Masa Chekov

        No, China has no right whatsoever. None. The community of nations recognizes Okinawa and the Ryukyus as Japanese, they are Japanese. There is not debate on this issue.

      • justice_first

        A thieve could insist that a “stolen” property as his, but this cannot change the fact.

        The community of nations cannot possibly recognize the Ryukyus as Japanese because of the Potsdam Declaration.

        Unless the results of the second world war are reversed, there is simply no reason to say the Ryukyus belong to Japan.

      • Masa Chekov

        “A thieve could insist that a “stolen” property as his, but this cannot change the fact. ”

        Stolen? From whom? Certainly not from China. This has nothing to do with China, so China should stay out of the issue. It’s between the native Okinawans and Japan, that’s all.

        “The community of nations cannot possibly recognize the Ryukyus as Japanese because of the Potsdam Declaration.”

        Yet they do. Hmm. Nobody but ultra-nationalist PRC people say Okinawa is anything but Japanese. Not even the Okinawans themselves wish to be anything but Japanese.

      • justice_first

        Masa, listen, if you want to deny the results of the second world war(1945), you may by all means, “but” the world community is not that crazy to ignore history. They all know the “content” of the instrument of surrender, an international treaty of huge significance, a bedrock of the modern post war order. Japan’s sovereignty is pretty much stated with clarity. Since the US is in fact occupying Okinawa, not many nations are bold enough to challenge the US, not to speak of the native Okinawan. They have been trying to get the American out for years, but with no avail. Japan will not challenge the American for its own benefits.

        No matter what you are saying now, Japan has no legal title to the Ryukyu (Okinawa), and the US is using this “leverage” against Japan, in blackmailing Japan into agreeing to the military bases there. China is the only power dare to raise the issue for the Okinawan. The US is “most” unlikely to directly oppose China in this political stance because the truth is on the side of China.

        The US is a signatory to the Potsdam Declaration.

      • Masa Chekov

        “China is the only power dare to raise the issue for the Okinawan.”

        Oh, that is rather funny! China doesn’t do anything that’s not in China’s best interests. And their only interest in the Okinawan (non) Issue is Chinese hegemony.

        You seem to forget that Okinawans live under a liberal democracy. They are free to vote any way they wish, and express their opinions freely. This is not tightly controlled PRC where people need a to be permitted to express an opinion contrary to the government.

        Okinawan people wish to be a part of Japan. Votes and opinion polls have consistently shown this. Nobody willingly wants to be under PRC influence, that’s for sure. As a Chinese citizen yourself, you don’t seem to realize this.

      • justice_first

        You must owe your allegiance to Japan?

        Interestingly, what we are discussing here is a matter of principle, that Japan is not the owner of Okinawa. This is factually correct.

        We should leave the indigenous Okinawan to decide their own fate when it comes to their nationality and allegiance, because this is certainly their right after suffering greatly for the Japanese in the second world war. Now their voices must be heard, and their own country “should” be restored (to them) as “promised” in the Potsdam Declaration.

        They wanted the American out of Okinawa, and yet they are denied. This is how the Okinawan are subjugated by both the American and the Japanese interests.

      • Masa Chekov

        “Interestingly, what we are discussing here is a matter of principle, that Japan is not the owner of Okinawa. This is factually correct.”

        No, it’s not. The nations of the world recognize Okinawa as Japanese; that makes Okinawa Japanese. That’s how these things work, justice_first.

        “We should leave the indigenous Okinawan to decide their own fate when it comes to their nationality and allegiance”

        As I said, Okinawans have clearly and consistently expressed a desire to remain Japanese. Go look at any poll of Okinawan people. There is no desire to be divorced from Japan.

        “They wanted the American out of Okinawa, and yet they are denied.”

        This is an extreme oversimplification. Okinawans generally want the mainland to share more of the burden of hosting the military bases but most people do not want them gone completely. While there are a lot of problems associated with the bases they do also add a lot to the economy.

      • justice_first

        Do you realize that if ever there is a conflict with China, Okinawa will be wiped out in the first instance because of its military bases ? Do you think the Okinawan would like to repeat what they experienced in the second world war ? Deep down they know their fate if they don’t stand up for themselves, and the Japaneses is their conqueror. They remember how they were forced into submission, and how their language and customs are being subjugated by the Japanese( this is serious). Only now, they are unable to oppose the joint might of the US and Japan.

        Due to valid international treaties, China and the international community are “not” about to say Japan owns the Ryukyu.

        They just can’t say that with enough legal conviction.

      • Masa Chekov

        “Do you realize that if ever there is a conflict with China, Okinawa will
        be wiped out in the first instance because of its military bases ? Do
        you think the Okinawan would like to repeat what they experienced in the
        second world war ?”

        AHA, now we are at the heart of your position – the PRC position. ‘Okinawa should kick out the US and leave Japan, else China’s going to attack in the event of war.’ A threat. Not even a thinly veiled threat.

        This is exactly why all this Chinese posturing over the Senkakus is important. First, Senkakus, next, Okinawa. The threat of violence. Yet China claims Japan is militarizing? Who is threatening who here?

        You’ve made yourself very clear here. Do what China says, else you might get hurt. Very revealing.

        “China and the international community are “not” about to say Japan owns the Ryukyu.”

        You can close your eyes, plug your ears and scream all you want – but repeating yourself 10 times doesn’t make you any less wrong.

      • justice_first

        Although you are brilliant in other ways, I must say you get it all wrong.

        China was all along sticking to the shelving agreement(1972) with Japan. Japan then denied this agreement and purchased three of the islands last year. It is too clear to the world that Japan is the one stirring things up, stoking the conflict for a purpose: to rearm and to change the constitution. The situation for Okinawa is therefore pushed to a prcarious condition of possible conflict. During the second world war, it was the US who attacked Okinawa because it was Japan. Now history might repeat itself. I still think you are a reasonable person ( from what you have written). But if you blindly follow Abe, you will become a fanatic in the wrong direction, who cannot see the truth that is facing the Ryukyuan.

      • Masa Chekov

        “China was all along sticking to the shelving agreement(1972) with Japan. Japan then denied this agreement and purchased three of the islands last year.”

        I thought we were just talking about Okinawa? Not the Senkakus?

        “It is too clear to the world that Japan is the one stirring things up, stoking the conflict for a purpose: to rearm and to change the constitution.”

        Nah. The world doesn’t see it that way. China does for sure, but all of China’s neighbors see it being very aggressive towards them. Not only confrontations with Japan, but incursions into India, threatening violence against the Philippines… Given the sad state of the Japanese economy I don’t think that anybody really wants to see more tax yen going towards the military but given the ever expanding and ever aggressive Chinese military there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of choice.

        “But if you blindly follow Abe”

        ??? When did I ever say I supported Abe? I don’t like his hawkish behavior and I don’t like his flirting with the uyoku. I would never vote for him. But he’s going to get a whole lot of support from people on these issues of national defense when people see an expansionist China and images of Chinese people rioting and looting Japanese interests, and talking about a war that ended 70 years ago. If China actually wants a peaceful, mutually beneficial relationship with Japan (as both sides should want) they really should start by acting like it.

      • justice_first

        One thing you can be sure. China always wanted peace with Japan, as witnessed by the 40 years of peace before the island purchase (late 2012). No one will deny this obvious fact.

        As to the Okinawa issue, it was “started” by the Senkaku issue, because Japan claims the Senkaku part of Okinawa (or Ryukyu). You see the connection ?

        Unless the two sides can sit down to negotiate, there is no end to the dispute.

      • 1derer

        justice_first, you are misunderstanding how International Law works with regards to state sovereignty.

        A Key point: State sovereignty in international law operates entirely based on present conditions.

        The Potsdam Declaration – and all other treaties concerning Okinawa – are completely irrelevant under International Law, as they address past conditions.

        State sovereignty is a balance of two main legal norms:

        First, the less important norm:

        Declarative Theory – Effectively the idea that any territory with the constituent functions of a sovereign state is therefore a sovereign state. That means it has a permanent population with a working government that ultimately derives its legitimacy from a Head of State.

        Okinawa has all of these. Since their government derives legitimacy from the Japanese Head of State and constitution-level provisions, under the Constitutive Theory of international of law, it is Japanese.

        But the above holds true for Taiwan, and it is not a legally recognized sovereign state. Similarly, Israel holds East Jerusalem, but most nations don’t recognize East Jerusalem as Israeli territory.

        Which leads us to:

        Constitutive Theory – E.g., the principle that states derive their legitimacy through recognition by other states. This is the most fundamental component of international law regarding sovereignty.

        So long as the broader international community recognizes a state’s rights to a territory, that state has right to that territory. Once the widespread recognition has been granted, that sovereignty becomes enshrined within international law, and guaranteed by the United Nations Charter with respect to the sovereign equality of all nations.

        Okinawa has widespread recognition as being Japanese. Therefore, under international law, it is Japanese.

        Further, If China were to now make an official statement that it does not recognize Okinawa as Japanese, the status of Okinawan sovereignty would be a legal issue only in China.

        In Conclusion

        For Okinawan sovereignty to become a question that’s relevant under international law, the broader international community would need to stop recognizing Japan’s sovereignty over the islands. Until that happens, it’s Japan’s.


        justice_first,

        You seem very passionate about this issue, and I respect that. You make interesting points about the morality and legality of various territorial transfers.

        However – with respect to Okinawa – the Potsdam Declaration and associated treaties, are only relevant as a bilateral issue between China and Japan. They hold no bearing on international law, because international law is based on upholding the present status quo.

      • justice_first

        you have obviously confused two separate key concepts: administration and sovereignty.

        The Potsdam Declaration, incorporated in the instrument of surrender, is an internationally recognized treaty. Japan’s sovereignty was defined within this treaty. Japan lost the Ryukyu Islands after 1945 as a result of the second world war. There is no “widespread” recognition from the international community that Japan has “regained” this sovereignty. Some nations may be willing to recognize Japan’s “administration” of Okinawa; the Ryukyuan may not be that willing.

        The Ryukyuan have never “voluntarily” handed their sovereignty to Japan. Japan had never obtained a legal title to Okinawa in 1879 by force. The US can only go so far, as an ally, to recognize Japan’s “administration” over Okinawa, not “sovereignty”. Why, because the US is a signatory to the Potsdam Declaration.

        The Potsdam Declaration is “not” a bilateral issue between China and Japan, it is an internationally recognized treaty, valid under the international law today. This is the present status if you will. If China opt to raise the issue of Okinawa, it will not be a “bilateral” issue, it will be an international issue of immense significance involving the stationing of US troops in Okinawa. China as a signatory, has a right to bring up the issue in the UN.

      • 1derer

        justice_first,

        Again, you’re not understanding how international law works.

        First: “Sovereignty” is a legal concept, “administration” is not. It is an informal term that describes what government is responsible for a particular service or territory.

        I suggest you review Chapter 1 of the UN Charter, which is the bedrock of international law.

        Under Chapter 1 of the Charter, the sovereignty of a nation supersedes all other considerations, including treaties. Thus, the Potsdam Declaration is only relevant to areas without a clear sovereign authority, such as the Diaoyu/Senkaku.

        The key here is this: When a state grants De Jure recognition of another state, they are considered to have granted De Facto recognition to that’s state’s territorial claims.

        This is why China passed a De Jure agreement that recognizes the right of Argentina to the Falklands. Although China had previously taken the position that the Falklands belonged to Argentina, their position had not been made in a manner with legal standing.
        By signing an agreement, China has now legally declared that it does not recognize Britain’s sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

        Because other nations have yet to make a De Jure statement that Okinawa does not belong to the Japanese, the statement that “Okinawa is recognized as Japanese” is completely, legally true.

        You are absolutely correct that China has the right to bring this up at the United Nations. But a nation has a right to bring up literally anything at the United Nations.
        The way that international law works, until China convinces other states that the Potsdam Declaration should be the governing treaty concerning Japanese sovereignty, its perspective is not relevant.

        In other words: Under International Law, the Potsdam Declaration doesn’t matter unless other countries agree that it does. This is true for every treaty that has ever been signed.

        This is because international law is based on Consensus (Constitutive Theory), and Control (Declarative Theory). And again, Okinawa has both of these.

        Again, you make good arguments. But they’re moral arguments, not legal arguments. For them to be legal arguments, they would need to have widespread support from the international community.

      • justice_first

        International law is just a set of rules, subject to interpretation. The rules are constantly evolving and subject to debate and sometimes controversy. Adjudication under this set of rules is itself “unpredictable” because of varying circumstances.

        The instrument of surrender of japan is a treaty that clearly “defines” Japan’s sovereign territories after 1945. China does not have to “convince” the other states about the Potsdam Declaration because the other states are already signatories to the instrument. They have an obligation, under contract, to support the Declaration. The US is one of them.

      • justice_first

        Japan has neither consensus, nor control over Okinawa. The world community is able to see this, and they will not agree to declare Okinawa Japanese sovereign territories. All they can fall back to is the Potsdam Declaration they have signed. Because of the US presence, Okinawan is still unable to declare their ownership of the islands. This too is obvious to the international community.

        This is an outstanding issue to be resolved later.

      • R Collier

        China a responsible member of the UN? That’s laughable!. Tell that to the innocent Syrians who a being murdered by there own government.

      • justice_first

        there is no “innocent” Syrian anyway. They are just fighting for power and control within their own country.

        It is civil war.

      • justice_first

        You said there is no dispute “here”. Presumably, you are saying there is no one disputing the Ryukyu as “already owned” by Japan. This is “not” legally correct because we know that after the second world war, Japan “lost” the Ryukyu islands.

        This is stated in the Potsdam Proclamation, and Japan’s own instrument of surrender (1945), and China is a signatory to both instruments. Japan has lost any “legal” title to the Ryukyu, without any doubt. The US did not return sovereignty to japan in 1972, because the US has no right to do so. The US cannot “unilaterally” change the post war order, nor challenge this fact. Therefore under international law, Japan is not the owner of the Ryukyu.

        The international community, and the UN will back up the above legal position if challenged. Do you get it ?

      • justice_first

        Further more, the only advice I have for you is to study history. You could have been misled by the extreme right wing.

      • Cristian Muñoz

        Neighbor U-Dunno
        You are another one who misunderstood Hayashi Shihei’s map of East Asia. The Hayashi Shihei’s map that China use to claim Senkaku’s is decontextualized because Shihei never depicted Senkakus as being part of China but colored the island drawing with the same color as China mainland. But this fact does NOT prove that Senkaku was part of China, because in the whole Hayashi Shihei’s map book, Manchuria is colored similar as Japan, even when Manchuria wasn’t part of Japan in XVIII Century. XD China liars, the History proves that Senkaku was NEVER part of China. In the other hands, you can use ONE misunderstood Shihei’s map as evidence, but the World have THOUSAND of Chinese maps depicting Senkaku as part of Japan, even after 1949. I will give some numbers of Chinese AMAZING FAKERY: 750.000 Chinese maps were confiscated by Beijing, since 2005, using the pretext that those maps were “erroneous”. If you know what I mean. XD Go LOOK for YOURSELF: There are plenty of maps that depicts Senkakus as being part of Japan. Even Ming Shilu (annals of Ming Dinasty Emperors) states in a record dated back to August 1617 that OCEAN inmediately BEYOND Dongyin Island (Nowadays Taiwanese territory, 40 km off China Mainland) was FREE for China and any other nations to NAVIGATE. Another one: An official letter authored by Chinese Council Feng Mien in Nagasaki on behalf of the Republic of China, on 20 May 1921, made reference to “Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama Islands, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan”, in the letter submited to Japan after a Chinese crew were rescued by Japan from a shipwreck in 1920. This is real EVIDENCE, NOT a misunderstood Hayashi Shihei’s map.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnlr_OBN2uw&list=PL8213E6975E0E8F47

  • Spudator

    Thanks to Shintaro Ishihara’s meddling, the “let sleeping dogs lie” agreement between Japan and China concerning ownership of the Senkakus is now in tatters. China, not surprisingly, is outraged by Japan’s going back on its word and effectively giving the Middle Kingdom the middle finger (such an insult being exactly what that arrogant fool Ishihara intended), and is doing everything it can to make its displeasure felt—hence the constant Chinese pressure on Japan over the issue. Japan is now in a real bind with regard to the Senkakus, and China isn’t about to let it off the hook.

    When you think about it, China’s demand that Japan officially acknowledge that there’s a territorial dispute over the islands is perfectly understandable. The two countries had an agreement to put the dispute on the back burner, Japan tore that agreement up, and now China is saying, “OK, if that’s how you want to play it, fair enough. You want a dispute? You’ve damned well got one.”

    Ah, the unfailing ability of these idiot right-wing politicians like Ishihara to get Japan into one imbroglio after another. There’s just no end to their crap, is there? Why do the Japanese continue to vote for them?

    • justice_first

      you are right and you are wrong. you are right that there is dispute between the two, and Japan is foolish to deny it. You are wrong if you think Japan doesn’t need a dispute. Japan actually desperately need a dispute with China for its rearming and changing the pacifist constitution. This is how Japan is stoking a dispute with China, to create the so called China threat.

      Japan is now in a real bind of its own cocoon.

      • Spudator

        Japan actually desperately need a dispute with China for its rearming and changing the pacifist constitution. This is how Japan is stoking a dispute with China, to create the so called China threat.

        This is an excellent point. I have to admit my contempt for Ishihara blinded me to the fact that there may have been method in his madness, and that his recklessness in contemptuously defying China was designed to provoke a serious confrontation with the country and frighten the people of Japan into allowing the constitution to be changed.

        If that was Ishihara’s intention, he was playing an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible game. And the game he started isn’t over yet; we still don’t know whether it’s going to end badly or not. I just hope China shows more intelligence in dealing with this issue than Japan has so far.

      • Casper Steuperaert

        How about we turn this the other way around? China needs a dispute to keep it’s governement popular and thus gives Japan a reason for re-arnament?

    • Christopher-trier

      I am happy that Ishihara has cast in his lot with Nippon Isshin no Kai for no other reason than that it took him away from his Tokyo governorship and effectively ended his political career. He is, along with Jiang Zemin, one of the two most dangerous men in East Asia. Do not forget that in order to distract from the corruption and incompetence of the CCP that Jiang as president pushed a hyper-nationalistic education programme in China.

      You clearly don’t like Japan and you also have your reasons, but you can’t forget that China is just as guilty of having idiot politicians and even more guilty of stirring things up.

  • LeslieCz

    A: It’s mine.
    B: It’s mine.
    A: We have a dispute.
    B: No dispute.

    • Casper Steuperaert

      A: Hey there are islands
      B: Their ours
      A: Hey, we want those islands now
      B: Too late
      A: We have a dispute
      B: On what grounds?

  • justice_first

    The recent remarks of Yukio Hatoyama, ex-PM of Japan, in an interview is significant. He is telling the truth, that the islands were stolen by Japan. This is a fact of history of late 19th century. It would be extremely hard for Japan to justify its secretive incorporation of the islands, when it is ignoring the historic facts before 1884. Japan was on the winning party in 1895, and it would be almost impossible for China to challenge Japan for what it was claiming, that the islands were Terra Nullius (with no owners), particularly when the claim was secretive and unknown to China for almost 70 years until 1969.

    History will vindicate Mr. Hatoyama for his courage to tell the truth despite extremely heavy internal pressure and politics.

  • Jay Wilson

    So China is effectivly asking Japan to declare a no entry zone around it’s own territory? Japan controls the islands and does not have to do anything China wants