Improving chilly Japan-China ties

Since Japan nationalized three Senkaku islets in the East China Sea on Sept. 11, 2012, ties between Japan and China ties have remained chilly. In an effort to improve bilateral relations, both sides should make strenuous efforts to find a new way to shelve the Senkaku issue.

Japan and China signed a peace and friendship treaty in 1978. Polls carried out around 1980 showed that more than 70 percent of Chinese and Japanese felt affinity for each other’s country. In stark contrast, polls taken this June and July showed that more than 90 percent of Chinese and Japanese hold a bad impression of each other’s country. Japanese who visited China on business and for tourism in the first half of this year numbered 1,399,200, a 25.5 percent dip from the same period of 2012. The number of Chinese who visited Japan in the same period declined 27 percent to 536,200. According to the Japan External Trade Organization, two-way trade between Japan and China in the first half of this year fell 10.8 percent from a year before — the first drop in four years. Japan’s investment in China fell 31.2 percent in the same period.

While extremely regrettable, the downturn in bilateral relations is not surprising. In both countries, the actions of politicians, members of the media and even ordinary citizens have stirred ill feelings and nationalistic sentiment on both sides.

Since Japan nationalized the three islets, Chinese government ships have been entering Japanese territorial waters around the Senkaku Islands once every six days on average. China should refrain from trying to undermine Japan’s effective control of the islands. The islands have been part of Japan since 1895 in accordance with international law and that it is only in 1971, several years after the area’s potential for energy resources was discovered, that China began claiming sovereignty over them. Japan should ensure that this fact is known in the international community.

On Sept. 5, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping chatted briefly at the Group of 20 summit held in St. Petersburg. This is a tiny step forward. Both leaders should take a flexible approach so ties can improve to the point where a summit meeting can take place. Mr. Xi should stop insisting that Japan must accept the existence of a territorial dispute over the Senkakus as a prerequisite to holding a summit. For his part, Mr. Abe must understand that a statement he made in reference to Japan’s war responsibilities — that no definition of aggression exists, academically and internationally — is hindering improvement of Japan-China relations. He should clearly admit that Japan waged a war of aggression on China and express official remorse over it.

Unless both sides stop antagonizing each other, relations will not improve. Japanese and Chinese leaders must work to prevent the Senkaku issue from harming broader, mutually important interests.

  • justice_first

    from this article, it is clear that Japan is still insisting that it has “effective control” over the islands from 1895. This is far far from the truth, not born by historic facts. This is a myth and a misrepresentation to the world.

    Japan’s annexation of the islands on 14 Janurary 1895 was secretive until 1969. China’s silence, or perceived acquiescence, has much to do with this anomalous secrecy, because China did not have constructive knowledge of this annexation. The annexation was therefore invalid in international law. From 1945 to 1972, Japan had no control over the islands because they were under the trusteeship of the US. After 1972, the dispute was shelved by a “tacit agreement” by both sides which Japan now denies.
    After 1972, Japan did not have “effective control” of the islands because of the tacit agreement mentioned, the US security agreement/support and China’s protest of the SFPT in which China was not a signatory. It is clear that effective control from 1895 to the present is only a myth.

    were the islands Terra Nullius before the annexation ? Japan was never able to prove this. We beg the question : why Japan is doing this to China now ? Is there a deeper reason to stir up so much hate and hostility now ? Yes, there is one.

    Japan wants to change the “peace” constitution, to rearm to become a strong pacific power. It is “using” the islands dispute to “persuade” the Japanese voters to back the above moves. Japan is creating a China threat for the selfish purpose. This is the truth behind its aggressive action toward China, thinking the US is behind as an ally. This is a dangerous game, and Japan is willing to risk it all to do it, to become a “great” power again. By denying the responsibilities of the second world war, Japan will never become a true great power. What Japan is doing now is wrong because it has not demonstrated any sincere remorse on its aggression and invasions to its neighbors from 1879, from the Ryukyu Kingdom to all over Asia. Do you think the world is blind to the past ?

    Japan believes in the sword, and that any problem can be solved with force, as in the past. This can only be a misjudgment, once again. Because the world has changed.

    • shin ra

      More like China is only interested in these islands now because of the oil deposits there discovered in the 70s. Before that, you didn’t hear a peep from them. Now they are trying to encroach in not only Japanese territories but also those in southeast Asia. It seems like they like to cry victim because of WW2, but in fact they are the aggressors. The rest of your comments are just blah blah blah…

      • justice_first

        When you bring up the motive of oil and gas, I somehow feel you are not able to understand the dispute.

      • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

        Hi, I’m a Japanese citizen, nice to meet you.
        Existence of the resource is not relevant to the reason of “why Chinese people have got that angry”.
        They’ve got mad at “getting breached a promise”, you have to start your learning from this first.
        To know why they’re so angry, is most important.
        They are “Chinese”, and they keep promise, beside we don’t.
        They get mad at “getting disgraced” more and more than not getting the resource.
        Because they’re not Western.
        Furthermore they’re Chinese, being Chinese means being dignified.
        They have to keep a promise and behave right, to maintain their dignity.
        We Japanese have no such virtue on ourselves, or totally lost long time ago.
        There has to be always some different analysis or understanding or study but Western way needed when you look at Asian issue, no exception.
        We Japanese are Asian too, but we’ve half lost our Asian identity, by certain reasons and time which I prefer not to refer to at this time.

      • Ken5745

        Hi Michiko, well said. You have my respect as well as many Japanese I know who can see through the senseless hype created by the ultra right nationalists.

        As I said before it’s a no brainer. If Japan wishes to Improve the ‘chilly Japan-China ties’ and saves its 24% export to China, all it has to do is to respect the agreement made by Tanaka and Zhou Enlai in 1978 to ‘shelf’ the decision on the disputed islands to future generations of both nations to decide.

        Before the nationalization of the Islands in Sept last year, there were no major problems between Japan and China, which is Japan’s biggest trade partner.

        China has kept is promise to shelf the dispute over the islands for future generations to decide.

        Now its Japan’s turn to keep the same promise and all the tension will melt away.

        China is even willing to explore for resources in the sea around the islands with Japan on a 50/50 basis. What more is better than that?

        Peace and prosperity are better options for Japan.

      • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

        Thank you for your response.
        I agree with almost of your address again.
        But I’m not happy to point it out twice, you may not mistake it again, it is “1972″, not “1978″.
        1972 is a dramatic historical year that no Japanese or Chinese people could have forgotten.
        You’re not one of both if you’re not aware of the meaning of the year 1972.
        And it is not about resource, but respect, or friendship and trust.
        I can see it in your suggestion only about material issues, importation, and resource.
        It is not an essence what Chinese people have got mad about.
        And the developing plan of the area was proceeded equally, yes I’m aware of it, it is just “one” of the reasons why I believe Chinese people treat us to be their family, and they’re not able to offend their family without a rational cause.
        It has to be based on friendship and love and trust first when we try to keep the relationship with China, never beneficial issues first, because it is not going to work for Chinese people.
        Chinese people don’t get moved by profit, while there’s no respect.

      • Ken5745

        Michiko, I agree with you that the original ‘shelf’ agreement took place in 1972 but it was not formalized. The 1978 shelf declaration in front of Japan’s National Press Club by Deng should have legal status. But the moral stance took place in 1972.

        Friendship, love and trust will return if Japan and China hold a summit to bring back the magic of 1972.

        I think its not too late. But leaders must think with their heads and not with their hearts.

      • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

        “China is even willing to explore for resources in the sea around the islands with Japan on a 50/50 basis.”

        Sure: “50% for us, and you weren’t going to use your 50% anyway, were you? Fine – we’ll use it.”

        China and Japan already have joint exploration agreements in the area. Guess who is in breach of them (big hint: not Japan)?

      • Ken5745

        Its called the ‘tit for tat’ syndrome. If Japan won’t honor the shelf agreement what does it expect from China? More rewards? Get real.

      • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

        See, that right there is China’s problem – in a negotiated agreement between equals one side is not offering “rewards”. China is not the center of the world anymore – not that it ever was to begin with, but….

      • Ken5745

        And Japan was never trusted to be in the center of the flawed and egregious “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.”

        Now China is the center of attack by Japan’s right wing nationalists.

        According to the Yomiuri Shimbun, dated July 10, 2013 :

        “The area where China has recently been confirmed to have begun establishing a drilling facility is located about 26 kilometres west, toward China, of the median line favored by Japan.”

        So why is it wrong to explore for oil and gas on China’s side of ‘the median line favored by Japan’ ?

    • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

      “China did not have constructive knowledge of this annexation.”

      Then why do PRC and ROC maps of the islands from the 1950s and 1960s label them as part of Japan, and use the Japanese names?

      See, that’s the thing about living in the free world – if a government is lying, the truth can still come out. China has denied the maps exist, then when their existence was proven beyond doubt China said the mapmakers “didn’t know what they were doing” – despite the fact they were working for the PRC government and army, despite the fact the “error” appears on several different official PRC maps and despite the fact there is a wealth of evidence from other PRC government sources that the islands were considered to be Japanese or at least “not Chinese”.

      Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling a lie louder is not going to help your case, and it is not going to prove Japan “wrong”.

      • Ken5745

        Here are remarks made by Japanese Professors and writers to show that Japan knew the Diaoyu belonged to China before annexing it in 1895 as a war booty :

        “In 1885, the Japanese Governor of Okinawa Prefecture, Nishimura Sutezo, petitioned the Meiji government, asking that it take formal control of the islands.”

        “However, Inoue Kaoru, the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, commented that the islands lay near to the border area with the Qing empire and that they had been given Chinese names. He also cited an article in a Chinese newspaper that had previously claimed that Japan was occupying islands off China’s coast. Inoue was concerned that if Japan proceeded to erect a landmark stating its claim to the islands, it would make the Qing empire suspicious.”

        “Following Inoue’s advice, Yamagata Aritomo, the Minister of the Interior, turned down the request to incorporate the islands, insisting that this matter should not be “revealed to the news media”.

        Source : Unryu Suganuma (2000). ‘Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations’ University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–97. ISBN 0-8248-2493-8.

        Next :

        1 In his article “Japanese Militarism & Diaoyutai (Senkaku) Island A Japanese Historian’s View”, Prof Kiyoshi Inoue, History Professor at Kyoto University wrote :

        “Proceeding from the Japanese people stand of opposition to militarism, one should reject the name Senkaku Islands, which was adopted by Japanese Militarism after seizing them from China.”

        “Use the only correct name in history, namely, the Diaoyu (Diaoyutai) Islands”

        For more info refer to his book “Senkaku Retto”.

        2 In June 2004, Japanese professor Tadayoshi Murata of Yokohama National University, published “Senkaku Islands vs the Diaoyu Islands Dispute” and supports the fact that “Since the Ming Dynasty, Chinese maps and documents of many kinds marked Diaoyu Islands, Huangwei Islands, Chiwei Islands as being lying within the territory of China”.

        “‘Japan’s claim of its purported “discovery in 1884″ of the Diaoyu Islands contradicts with the navigation map in its own 1783 historical document Sankoku Tsuran Zusetsu published by prominent Japanese military scholar Hayashi Shihei clearly stating the area a part of China.” he said.

        .

      • justice_first

        I really don’t believe Japanese scholars would deliberately lie to say something that is not in Japan’s favor. Why should they do that ? I tend to pay serious attention to their views if they are against the “mainstream” Japanese belief. The truth “should” be, in my humble opinion, somewhere in what they are saying.

        They dare to speak the truth.

      • justice_first

        You are right in a way. Japan has denied the comfort women, the invasion of WW2, the Nanking massacre, the “tacit” agreement to shelve the dispute in 1972, …

        Japan can no longer escape from the truth that the world recognizes as facts. Japan’s credibility and sincerity is on the line. Abe is in fact playing a very dangerous game.

        I am aware there are controversies relating to certain maps printed in the 1950′s or 1960′s. After all, those islands were occupied by Japan from 1895 to 1945, for over 50 years. You may note, with interest, that the school text books in Japan from 1945 to 1970 did not include the islands as Japanese territories. This is only right in view of the post war order on Japan. Any map will be subject to the “confirmation” of the Foreign Ministry, on matters of sovereignty, in strict compliance with international treaties.

        Even if a map maker “considers” the whole of Japan as Chinese territories in its “printed” maps, the “controversy” over sovereign will exist, I presume, because maps “alone” cannot determine, or alter, the ownership of territories. Maps are therefore not a final say, or recognition, of sovereignty, or even temporary occupation.

        China refused to recognize the sovereignty of Manchukuo, a puppet state set up by Japan in the 1930′s, and China is refusing to recognize Japan’s administration of the islands today. In fact China is not recognizing the SFPT as valid instrument to alter the post world order, because it was not a signatory to that agreement.

      • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

        “In fact China is not recognizing the SFPT as valid instrument to alter the post world order”

        Well that’s too bad – because the civilized sections of the world recognize the SFPT as valid. China can think the SFPT is invalid, that Chinese evolved from Peking Man independent of the rest of humanity, that Chinese invented the pottery wheel, or any other nonsense they wish.

        The rest of us will just laugh.

      • justice_first

        Laugh while you can, because the fact remains that the SFPT, an product of a cold war of the 1950′s, was never quite the right and legitimate instrument to alter the terms of surrender, or the post war order, by the unilateral action of the US, plus some of its allies.

        It was, at best, a separate peace treaty with Japan, that violates the solemn pledge by all allies in WW2 “not” to conclude separate peace treaty with the enemy (Japan).

        If you don’t know this fact, you are not qualified to discuss what is a civilized world.

      • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

        It is not your kind of “truth” that we need, but “peaceful mutual relationship”, in Japanese, it says “共生”, coexistence.
        To pursue 共生, maps are no use.
        No map can bring us peace, no map can prevent a war from happening.
        As long as it is all about two countries, the promise 41 years ago is an only thing to be relevant.
        Because it is a very thing what both leaders of both countries had agreed with.
        No need for other issues to resolve this.
        Making my country stay out of war is my priority, because I have no other place to go back.
        The people who look to defend Japan, are not actually loving us Japanese citizens at all, I feel, a measure that making China a villain is not going to help us from war occuring, legitimacy or authenticity either, I don’t need those useless things but freindship and love and respect, I do need only things which will work for 共生, because I’m a Japanese local.
        Any map is not relevant before the promise, while they are no use for bringing us peace.
        Discussion regarding maps is only for two contracting parties to talk over, all upon the promise, not for gallery.
        And there will be no need for maps to discuss after two countries take back the relationship and trust.

      • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

        Japan is my country as well, I have nowhere to go “back” to, or even if I could I would not want to.

        Your ideals are lofty. And, sadly, delusions. China is not a good-faith partner. It has shown this time and again through its words and, more importantly, its actions. One cannot “peacefully coexist” with another who has no interest in treating you as an equal. China is such a state. Short of Japan becoming little more than a completely subservient vassal state, there is nothing Japan can do or say that will satisfy China.

        That is not “peaceful coexistence”, that is “slavery”. Perhaps that is good enough for you or folks like Hatoyama the Alien, but the rest of us do not want to live like that. Do you think you can peacefully coexist with people like “justice_first” and “ken5745″, people who warn that Japan better be careful or the other 52 reactors in Japan will be blown up and Japanese will have no place to live?* Because that is who is on the other side of the table from us.

        *Which is ridiculous, because even if China targeted the other reactors in Japan, we have a very powerful friend who will likely Chinese cities with things that make real mushroom clouds.

        **Also even if all 52 reactors were destroyed, the air, soil and water quality in Japan would *still* be better than China’s.

      • Ken5745

        You are wrong to say that China will not treat Japan as an equal. Its the other way round. This has been Japan’s flawed belief system since the Meiji Restoration..

        To achieve peace the proof of the podding is the eating. If Japan honors the ‘shelf’ agreement I think all tension between China and Japan will go away and diplomacy will normalize like in 1972 and again in 1978.

        China was the first nation to set sail in 1421 with 200 ships and 22,000 troops. If they had wanted to enslave Japan they would have done so then. China has not colonized an country. Japan colonized Korea, Manchukuo, the whole of South East Asia and a host of the Pacific islands.

        Tibet was annexed by the Mongols when it has no govt and it was incorporated into the Yuan dynasty.

        As for mentioning that “if the 52 nuclear reactors in Japan are destroyed during the next war”, that is not a threat. Its a fact that Abe should consider before he starts a war. Will the US come in to help Japan? Don’t count on it.

        With intense radiation, a normal life without cancer is not possible.

      • Ian

        China colonized Vietnam for 1,000 years. China invaded Tibet under Mao. If China inherited Tibet, why doesn’t the PLA leave Tibet to be ruled by Tibetans? Do Chinese want to be ruled over by a foreign power?

      • Ken5745

        Britain colonized Australia, Canada, the Virgin islands, Diego Garcia, HK and NZ in perpetuity, apart from Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Rhodesia, Palestine, Tanzania, Sudan, Egypt, India, Ceylon, Malaya, Burma, Singapore and Brunei which they had no choice but to give them back because of agitation by the people in the colonies for independence.

        In the case of HK it had to give it back in 1997 because the island has no water and China would not extend the 99 lease on the New Territory and Kowloon, where there are plenty of water..

        China did not invade Tibet. How can you invade your own province?

        Read my previous post on Tibet and don’t show your ignorance.

      • Ian

        You continually contradict yourself due to your shallow confirmation bias. So, if Tibet is just another province, why does the PLA feel the need for the army to be omnipresent there? And why do Tibetans hate and attack Han Chinese settlers?

      • Ken5745

        By the same token if the Falklands belong to Britain why ‘the need for the army to be omnipresent there?’

        In Tibet the population is about 3 million and 92.5% are Tibetans. Only about 6% are Han Chinese and the rest are other ethnic groups.

        Why would the Tibetans hate the Chinese when the Chinese were the ones who liberated them from slavery 56 years ago?

        China has modernized Tibet and the life expectancy of the Tibetans has risen from 35.5 years in 1951 to 63 years in 2012.

        Their literacy rate is now over 96% and Tibet has the lowest infant mortality rate in Asia. There are schools, universities, hospitals highways and railway when there were none in the bad old days.

        Today there are 2.1 million mobile phones registered in Tibet out of a population of about 3 million.

        It seems like you are stuck in the Cold war conundrum like your pal McCain.

        Enough said. This thread is about improving relations between Japan and China. Go somewhere else if you too wish to debate about the issues in Tibet.

        If you are from Australia, why don’t you do something to help the Aborigines?

      • Christopher-trier

        There needs to be a military presence in the Falklands because of Argentina, not to suppress any rebellion by the Falkland Islanders — after all, 99.8pc of them voted to remain a BOT.

      • Ken5745

        By the same token China has a border dispute with India over the illegal McMahon Line drawn up by the Brits, which encroached into Chinese territory. It pays to have troops near the border.

        As for the Falklands referendum its a no brainer. If you put a few thousands Brits there, then why be surprised when 99.9% voted yes to remain a BOT?

        The fact is that the Brits stole the Malvenas situated 10,000 miles from the UK and renamed it the Falklands. There is no statute of limits on theft. It will be returned to Argentina, just like the Diego Garcia will go back to the long suffering islanders who were tossed out by the evil Brits to lease the islands to the US military.

        The West’s sermon about Freedom and Democracy is full of horse crap

      • Ian

        “A truly intelligent mind can hold two opposing viewpoints with equal force at the same time” and thereby not have cognitive dissonance anxiety. You instead display anxiety due to your dismissiveness of
        opposing points of view. Your opinions are the result of decades of Communist Chinese propaganda. Such bias creates intolerance. Such is human development in a one party fascist state.

        Moreover, Tibet relates to the Senkaku issue due to the fact that Tibet is an occupied colony of China. This means China is not above imperialism. Likewise,
        Chinese double-speak about “repatriating” islands in Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines is subterfuge for a wider imperialist agenda. The “repatriation” of the “renegade province of Taiwan” — against the will
        of the Taiwanese people — is the next imperialist step.
        As far as the Falklands is concerned, residents voted overwhelming to stay British in a free and fair election. Why doesn’t China do the same in Tibet? The answer is
        obvious: Tibetans would overwhelmingly vote out the Communist Chinese in an instant! As for Aboriginals in Australia, Canada, and other colonized former Brit lands, well, those unfortunately natives were all
        colonized pre-20th century. Thus we now have an inherited legacy from our ancestors. But we have since developed our thinking and dropped colonialism. Unfortunately again, China is still a colonizer. It uses
        the ancient colonist excuse of “liberating backward peoples” as a pretext to acquire a buffer state against India.

      • Ken5745

        Hey Ian When “A truly intelligent mind can hold two opposing viewpoints with equal force ” the clinical name for the disease is Schizophrenia.

        My “opinions are (NOT) the result of decades of Communist Chinese propaganda.” Its the result of an expensive university education.

        Anyone who is not intellectually challenged can also see that the Europeans, particular the evil Brits, have been rampaging for the last 300 years to invade and conquer and colonize three-quarters of the world and then called it an Empire, from which to steal the resources and to treat folks therein with excruciating abuse of their human rights. If you think that is your right because ‘God is an Englishman’ then you need professional help.

        Show me where it says in the British Constitution that that sort of behavior is an international norm.

        The history of how Japan annexed the Diaoyu islands in 1895 is very clear, Even many Japanese Profs and writers have voiced their non-support for the annexation. You can bury your head in the sand for all I care.

        The PM of Nth Vietnam already wrote to Zhou Enlai circa 1964 that Vietnam had no geographical or historical claims over the Paracel. If you wish to challenge that then you also need professional help.

        China was the FIRST nation to sail the world’s oceans in 1421 says British author, Gavin Menzies. She discovered the islands in the South China seas first, he says.

        The Philippines only discovered some islands in the 17th century.

        As for Taiwan even your govt in the UK or Australia or US or Canada recognizes there is one China and Taiwan is part of it.

        Ditto for Tibet. Only ignoramus like you beg to differ. What can I say? You have a propensity to go off-topic and waste bandwidth Its time to stop showcasing your ignorance in front of the world.

      • Christopher-trier

        Kowloon south of Boundary Street and Stonecutters Island were ceded by the Great Qing to the UK in perpetuity. The New Territories and the portions of Kowloon north of Boundary Street were leased to the UK from 1898-1997.

        Tibet, as it is, had de facto independence — Mao chose to invade it. I am no supporter of the Dalai Lama, nor do I support Tibetan independence at this point — most ethnic Tibetans live in Qinghai Province (formerly a part of Tibet, but partitioned as a result of the Simla Convention) and many Han Chinese live in Tibet — the migration would almost certainly cost many lives and achieve little, if anything.

        For someone accusing people of ignorance you clearly need to learn history.

      • Ken5745

        The nuance that escaped you is that even if the small part of Kowloon was part of the British colony, there was not enough water to sustain the colony. Britain had no choice but to give it up.

        Also since it was ceded by the Qings, who themselves were invaders of China they could not give a good title to the British. If you say yes they could then you ought to see your solicitor.

        The other problem with the cession was that it was done under duress. That made it null and void just like the Shimonoseki treaty that ceded Taiwan and the pescadores to Japan in perpetuity too.

        According to the Potsdam Declaration, Japan had to give back the islands taken from China by ‘force and greed’. Taiwan and the Pescadores reverted back to China after 1945. In 1972, Nixon recognized that Taiwan is a part of China and so did Japan when it and China normalized relations in the same year.

        As for your flawed claim that “most ethnic Tibetans live in Qinghai Province (formerly a part of Tibet”) this is another delusion of a self-taught ‘sikipedia’ historian.

        The Province has a population of 5.2 million and 20.7% are ethnic Tibetans, who “regard themselves as distinct from Tibetans in the Tibet Autonomous Region and celebrate their region’s unbroken independence from Lhasa’s control since the fall of the Tubo Empire.”

        Enough said. This thread is about improving relations between Japan and China. Go somewhere else if you wish to debate about the issues in Tibet.

      • Christopher-trier

        No, the nuance did not escape me — I simply did not bring that point up. There is a different between not knowing something and not mentioning something. I am also well aware what the Da Qing was — a “cooked barbarian” group who overthrew a Han Chinese dynasty, the Ming, and grafted themselves on top of their governing structure. They were quite competent, though — at least initially, even if they did make a point of forcing the Han Chinese to wear Manchu clothing and cut their hair in the Manchu style, something which would have been thought nearly unmentionable.

        The retro-cession of Taiwan was not legitimate, by the way.
        By 1945 it was an internationally accepted convention that a populated area could not be transferred from the rule of one country to another without the consent of those residing in that territory — the Taiwanese were never consulted about the matter. It’s a legal grey zone, but by default, Taiwan as it is now is the most legitimate as its government is democratically elected and Taiwan meets all criteria laid out by the Montevideo Convention.

      • Ian

        Why does the PRC need PLA troops in Tibet? Answer: Because Tibetans hate the Han Chinese colonialists. Tibetans attack their Chinese aggressors, correct? Your confirmation bias is based on ignorance, Get the bigger picture.

      • 思德

        I am not commenting on the Senkaku issue so much as I am what I feel is a misunderstanding of multi-party democracies.

        This is understandable if the writer is a Chinese citizen; they have no idea what such a thing as a multi-party state is. China is run by one party; if that party is tyrannical, then China is tyrannical. If it is nice, China is nice. That is how a one party system works. The party has its ideology and its line, which is not deviated from.

        Multi-party democracies do not work like that. Yes, there are nationalists in Japan who would relish the idea of having China under its heel in some unequal relationship. However, they cannot run all of Japan all the time. While I wouldn’t say Japan is exactly a country with a healthy political consciousness and vigorous opposition, it is several steps ahead of its larger neighbor in its democratic development.

        Currently, there are politicians in office who would likely be sympathetic to unfair behavior; however, there is no guarantee they will remain in power. A very significant portion of the Japanese population is reticent about their military having some kind of big resurgence. Jingoists who are ignorant or willfully so will zero in on nationalist rhetoric from specific politicians and ignore the fact that Japanese people, on the whole, seem quite apathetic and averse to international confrontation.

        Personally, I find the fears of Japanese aggression to be patently absurd. Japan is in no position to be aggressive with anyone. It is an occupied nation with a small military and a citizenry who are well versed in the consequences of war. I do find concern of Chinese aggression to me more reasonable, considering its history of aggressive claims and behavior against numerous neighbors near the South China Sea. It is a single party government, which makes it all the more vulnerable to caprice and foolhardy politics. It also has a populace raised with government sponsored indoctrination, nationalism, victim identity, and lack of access to outside information. My hope is that Chinese people do not swallow the bait on the Senkaku issue and continue to stay focused on holding their politicians accountable for their failures at home. It is a convenient red herring for the CCP to use to distract people from its own evils.

      • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

        Thank you for your reply.
        First thing first, before coming into details, please tell me “how” would I understand that Japan is your country as well.
        I don’t get it at all.
        I was born in Japan, between Japanese parents, raised in Japan, went to Japanese local school, no occasion of going out from Japan, I’m learning English now because I’m not good at it, I’m a native Japanese speaker, depending on language Japanese for reading and writing, having Japanese nationality, I vote, pay tax.
        No relatives and friends to accept me in when I become a refugee.
        And how you’re standing more “Japanese” than me, I like to know.

      • http://www.dadsarmy.co.uk/ GMainwaring

        Where did I say I was “more Japanese” than you?

        And are you trying to “pull rank” with your “I was born in Japan, to Japanese parents”? So? Am I less of a citizen of Japan, *my home and the home of my family*, because I was not blessed enough to be born here and be a Japanese citizen from birth? And you were saying something about “living in harmony”? I guess that is “living in harmony, but only with people who agree with me and are pure Yamato like me.”

        From your other response:

        “do it in “your own country”, not by my country, it is not your business. Japan is not your country, … why don’t you play it on your own country, don’t do it on Japan instead of yours.
        You can exaggerate it because it’s not your country.

        You don’t care it because it is not about yours.
        You don’t care how many Japanese locals dies in a war, including me, because the deaths of Japanese are not going to concern you,”

        Wow – racist much?

        Michiko, you should not ever worry about losing your home and having nowhere to live. I am certain China could find someplace for a nice lapdog.

      • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

        Thank you for your response, and your ever lasting unfairness of not giving your identity.
        You can say one word if you’re not more Japanese than me, why don’t you?
        I didn’t have to do it at all “if” you gave it from the start.
        I don’t want my country make a war, concern with a war, and I don’t like 野次馬 stirring up war by irresponsible talks with such maliciousness toward China, and it’s not going to make my country out of war.
        I’m represented few of my Japanese folks who don’t want a war either, who’re not able to concern here by English.
        Anyone not able to claim his identity can’t have a right to call someone racist, it is obvious in a matter of course, real funny you accusing someone of racist, I’m gonna tell my friends how you’re unique, (爆).

      • Justice1215

        Only Western imperialist like UK ,U.S. use African as slaves.
        China foreign policy is non-allied and non-interference in internal affair.,equality and mutual benefit.

      • Ian

        Tell that to Tibet

      • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

        You may suggest him after you check the life span of Tibetan people, as how it has been changed, or how much extent the privileged monks were owning back then.
        And Tibet is not related to our relationship, China and Japan made a promise not to interfere any of internal issues with each other, in 1972.
        No intellectual, no interfering of you.

      • Ian

        Invading a nation under the pretext of improving lives/liberation is a pretext without merit. Such thinking led to Admiral Perry’s gunboat diplomacy, thus Japan has been on the receiving end. Western colonialists hid behind such logic for centuries, and dominated/exploited the world in general. So too Japan has had that thinking applied to it.

        Plus, you don’t like “intellectual” argument? Yours are un-”intellectual”? This forum should be rational, not irrational. Also, Tibet is related, so you are wrong again. Tibet demonstrates the end result of Chinese aggression: colonial imperialism + buffer zone seeking through self righteous justification.

        Wrong again here: “China and Japan made a promise not to interfere any of internal issues with each other, in 1972.” Then why are we discussing the islands issue here? Because China is interfering in Japanese internal matters. I’m simply “interfering”? The Senkaus, as I’ve explained in other comments, is a power grab for a Chinese buffer zone. Vietnamese and Philippine islands are being invaded too. Thus the Senkaku issue affects all East Asian, therefore the world at large.

      • Ken5745

        When your Dalai Lama was in charge 90% of the folks were serfs (slaves) and 75% of what they farmed went to his holiness and the lazy aristocrats.

        Today the ethnic Tibetans are the majority in Tibet and they keep what they farm.

        The literacy rate was less than 5% when his holiness was there.

        Infant mortality was the highest in Asia. There were no hospitals or schools or highways or hotels, airport or railway or internet.

        Today, after he went into exile in 1959, the literacy rate is over 95%, infant mortality is the lowest in Asia. There are schools, hospitals, hotels, highways and the internet. It also has the world’s highest airport and railway.

        What more do you want?

        Can you say the same for the Australian Aborigines or the NZ Maoris or the Inuits in Canada or the Native Americans in the USA?

        Btw China did not annexed Tibet. The Mongols did, circa 13th century, when it had no govt and then incorporated it into the Yuan dynasty, ruled by the Mongols.

        Don’t show your ignorance.

      • Ian

        This same “liberation logic” can be applied to China. The PRC government is fascist. Fascist means a government stays in power with the aid of corporations and military. Wouldn’t China benefit from regime change? There is no state medical system for the poor, education is partially paid for by the state up to grade 8, the government sits on trillions of foreign reserves and T-bills, but does not aid the poor. Come on, isn’t the Communist Party bloated/corrupt? Let’s liberate China and improve the average citizen’s life?!

      • Ken5745

        Since the US is now broke with a $16.9 Trillion national debt that the US cannot possibly pay back and it is rising by another $1.2 Trillion every year and on top of this the US is hobbled with another $220 Trillion unfunded debt, it is the US that needs a regime change. Pronto.

        How about recalling Obama and bringing in McCain to run the White House? That should improve the lives of the Average Americans.

      • Ian

        China sits on trillions of dollars of foreign exchange reserves, T-bills and other equities. There is no national health care program in China (this is communism, a “people’s paradise?!). Public school is only (partially) funded until 8th grade. (Compare that to Europe where post-secondary schooling is free). The PRC is a fascist one-party state, with “group think.” They do little to aid the “People’s Republic.”

        The Politburo copies arch-enemy Chiang Kai-shek’s “industrialize first, democratize second” motto. Regime change is needed in China. The PRC copies the Taiwanese industrial model, but has 1,500 warhead pointed at that little country, and wants to invade. The PRC should copy Taiwan further, and go with a multi-party open democracy.

        And yes, angry Ken, this comment has to do with the Senkaku issue: The PLA (who are the actual leadership, and not the Politburo) has no regard for a People’s Republic. The Senkau issue is simply an empty excuse to increase China’s sea buffer zone. The PLA has similar weak deceptions they spout to justify hegemonic attacks on the Philippines’ + Vietnamese islands.

      • Christopher-trier

        More slaves went to the Arab world than to the Americas. Saudi Arabia only banned slavery in the 1960s. You are a racist.

      • Ken5745

        If more slaves went to the Arab world how is that the Arab world has fewer blacks that in the US today?

        If the Saudis banned slavery in the 1960s the US, the last bastion of democracy only banned segregation in 1964.

        Why are you so proud of the US when the Constitution says that ‘ It is self evident that all men are born equal’ but that did not stop the US from having slaves and violated the constitution?

      • Christopher-trier

        Te he he. I see your knickers are in a twist, and you are constructing a host of strawmen to knock down in order to avoid having to face the inherent flaws in your argument — and gaps in knowledge.

        The Arab world did not have quite the opposition to miscegenation that existed in North America, so many — if not most — Gulf Arabs have some black African ancestry. Furthermore, the majority of slaves taken to the Americas went to Ibero-America, not North America. Colombia, Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico, Peru — and above all, Brazil, have very large populations of African origin. When Brazil became independent in 1822 — recognised in 1825 by Portugal — almost 90pc of the country was of African origin. The last Mexican governor of Alta California, Pio Pico, was half Afro-Mexican, by the way.

        Slavery, by the way, was not banned by the constitution. The slave trade was explicitly set to be phased out, but slavery was not banned until the 13th Amendment was ratified on 18 December, 1865.

      • Ken5745

        You seem to suffer from selective amnesia. First you claimed that “More slaves went to the Arab world than to the Americas.”

        When you were shown to be delusional you are now claiming ” the majority of slaves taken to the Americas went to Ibero-America, not North America.”

        Even if it were true how could the USA, arguably the last bastion of ‘Freedom and Democracy’ even justify slavery?

        If that was not hypocrisy then what is?

        If slavery was not banned in the US Constitution that it was implied when it declared that ” It is self evident that all men are born equal’.

      • Christopher-trier

        Not at all, my good man. The slave trade was ancient and well established — the Arabs bought their slaves in East Africa, the Europeans primarily from West Africa and Kongo. (Although the Portuguese did bring some slaves from Mozambique to Brazil)

        Actually, my point is true — Brazil’s economy was based on commodities then as it is, albeit to a lesser extent, today. Unlike in North America where the slave population increased naturally (the fertility rate was fairly high and death rates were lower, partially because of a milder climate) Brazil’s economy required a steady stream of slaves from Africa — it took until the 1860s for the British to be able to effectively end the transport of slaves to Brazil, decades after they were able to stop the transport of slaves to North America. In other parts of Ibero-America it was much the same.

        You miss the point — slaves were not legally seen as fully human in the USA. In fact, in the early 19th century a slave was counted as 2/3rds of a human for census purposes. Slaves did not have the right to hold property, they did not have the right to select their own partners (many were forced to have children as if they were animals by their owners) and, most tragically perhaps, it was not uncommon for slave owners to rape female slaves in order to obtain more slaves — yes, they would enslave their own children.

        Debating anything with you is pointless. You do not care about facts or veracity. Every comment you have made is riddled with fallacies and inaccuracies — it seems as if you wish to win through exhausting your opponents into giving up rather than persuading through a strong, logical, coherent argument. As such, I will leave you with a bit of advice which will, without doubt, go unheeded — read history books and learn before you argue about things you have no knowledge about, signed: someone with an advanced degree in Chinese history.

      • Ken5745

        If “slaves were not legally seen as fully human in the USA.” then the US Constitution is a pack of lies, because it claims that “it is self-evident that all men are created equal”.

        Trying to justify slavery in America is not only abhorrent but shows that some folks never learn from history.

        If you have an advanced degree in Chinese history (doubtful) how is that you ignored what transpired in 1885 when the Governor of Okinawa Prefecture wanted to annex the Diaoyu islands?

        Here are remarks made by Japanese Professors and writers to show that Japan knew the Diaoyu belonged to China before annexing it in 1895 as a war booty :

        “In 1885, the Japanese Governor of Okinawa Prefecture, Nishimura
        Sutezo, petitioned the Meiji government, asking that it take formal control of the islands.”

        “However, Inoue Kaoru, the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, commented that the islands lay near to the border area with the Qing empire and that they had been given Chinese names. He also cited an article in a Chinese newspaper that had previously claimed that Japan was occupying islands off China’s coast. Inoue was concerned that if Japan proceeded to erect a landmark stating its claim to the islands, it would make the Qing empire suspicious.”

        “Following Inoue’s advice, Yamagata Aritomo, the Minister of the Interior, turned down the request to incorporate the islands, insisting this matter should not be “revealed to the news media”.

        Source: Unryu Suganuma (2000). ‘Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations’ University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–97. ISBN 0-8248-2493-8.

        Is the above “riddled with fallacies and inaccuracies”? NO !

        Read the rest in my earlier post and stop wasting bandwidth talking about slavery in the US as it is not the subject of this thread.

      • 思德

        We fought a war that involved that issue. You don’t know anything about American history, obviously. Many of the founding fathers expressed deep regrets that the southern states were allowed to have slaves, and believed that the US would not last long because of that deep division in beliefs.

      • Ken5745

        How pathetic. If ‘it is self-evident that all men are created equal’, as declared in the US Constitution then slavery violated the Constitution.

        The problem with your claim is that after writing the constitution and before the ink dried the founding fathers went back to their slaves in the plantations.

        They should have stated that “it is self-evident that all white men are created equal’. That would have made the civil war which killed about 900,000 people unnecessary.

      • 思德

        Regarding your first point: Yes. It was hypocritical. That’s why we fought a war over it. Was my point on that matter unclear? Americans resolved their hypocrisy. The Chinese have yet to.

        There is no problem with my point if you actually do some basic research and take people’s actions within the context of their time. George Washington freed all slaves upon his death (not a popular decision) and was concerned that the issue would destroy the country (he was right). Jefferson owned slaves, but remained conflicted on the matter enough to propose laws to limit the slave trade. Benjamin Franklin had slaves and in his lifetime, changed his mind about slavery, came to believe blacks were “inferior” only because slavery had reduced them to ignorance, and freed all of his. John Adams never had slaves and employed freedmen. John Jay worked to have slavery abolished in New York and achieved that goal; so did Alexander Hamilton. James Madison was the only founding father who did not, from what I can tell, take any steps to free slaves or fight slavery. If you want to condemn something, condemn American culture and lack of economic imagination for making it slow to turn against slavery when England already had.

        I am not sure what kind of point you are trying to make. Are you defending political inequality? It was better that conflicted men made a correct document that the people would eventually have to abide by, than to make such an obviously flawed assertion.

      • Ian

        The PRC has a fantastic constitution, doesn’t it? Problem is it is not enforced. A Party member’s whims becomes the de facto law of the land, and not the enshrined “Rights of Man”-influenced document.

        So why can’t you criticize China, ever? David and I admit to problems with Western governments, don’t we? You are more interested in feeling dominate than you are on a quest for insight into today’s China-Japanese issues. I’m sure you will respond with more ad hominem attacks, due to the poverty of your confirmation bias.

      • justice_first

        GMainwaring, you have to make sure that you don’t get the wrong idea. Michiko is right that Japan’s future lies in the East, not in the West, living peacefully with China. Don’t forget that China kept the promise of shelving the dispute for over 40 years, from 1972, and Japan broke that promise last year. If japan is fair to China, China will do the same. There is no truth in the belief that Japan is under the threat of slavery. It is unwarranted fear. China forgave Japan for war reparations for WW2, after losing about 35 million lives, military and civilian, in fighting the Japanese imperial aggression. This shows the generosity of the Chinese people toward Japan, not to mention China suffered trillions (dollars worth) of damages during the war. Why should Japan be afraid now ?

        About this nuclear situation, some in Japan may think they can develop nuclear bombs in six month to counter China. This is a dangerous idea because Japan is simply too small to withstand nuclear exchange. This is not a threat but a reality. It might sound scary but it is true. The best choice for both Japan and China is to be friends, good neighbors, and do a lot of business together. This re-militarism, or Abe’s ambition to revive Japan’s military power, is dangerous because Japan cannot handle another war with China. We all have to be sensibly, and humbly, to re-examine the “consequences” of another conflict. There will be no winner this time.

      • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

        I can tell you one thing that you don’t know, “completely subservient vassal state”, we’re already what you depicted, we’ve been staying such a status for 68 years.
        But, the boss is not what you’re suggesting.
        And the boss is now squeezing and squeezing us, because her pocket have been becoming lighter currently.
        China is not squeezing us, also no Chinese soldier ever hurt Japanese citizens.
        And in Asia, there’s an issue you don’t even know, Asian kind of brotherhood, this is a subtance necessary to discuss Asian relationship, which you’re always missing, and which I’m not losing.
        And I’m never saying “I’m greater than you for my Japanese particularity” but saying “I must have owned high stake than you” , about war concerning of Japan.

      • 思德

        Michiko: You are perceptive in seeing that your country is already occupied. I am an American working in Japan. Personally, I feel that the US should no longer be violating Japan’s sovereignty by having so many bases and so forth. I think it is also a waste of our money.

        However, there is a problem. If America completely withdrew from Japan, then all of the conservatives in Japan would have a very, very compelling argument to increase the power of the Japanese military, a far more compelling argument than they have now. More Japanese people might shift to the conservative side because they felt Japan was suddenly exposed. This is just a political observation about Japan, not about the Senkaku issue per se.

      • Justice1215

        Michiko :Making my country stay out of war is my priority

        Japanese people need to use their votes and choose political leaders who can really give them what they asking for and deserve for.

        Unlike Michiko majority Japanese people already choose war not peace by voting for Abe..So Japanese people will have to suffer from their government’s militarist policy.
        WW2 lesson is not enough for Japanese .They are asking for another lesson.

      • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

        Thank you for your reply, and sorry in case if it doubled.
        All of your suggestions are quite correct, and pointing the right place.
        I voted and voted, ended up with nothing in everytime, my Japanese folks are still appealing peace on Japanese web sites, confronting with Netouyo guys.
        Coincidentally, I am some able to concern with English forums, then I’m trying it for my part.
        Quite prejudiced reports of Japanese media repeating are leading the opinon, giving the militarists power, making ordinary non-political people blind.
        They feel it almost true when the media tells “China is bullying Japan”"we have nothing done wrong, just China is unreasonable”, and Netouyo guys exaggerate it, based on Cabinet Chief’s statement.
        Really bad situation, and few can say it’s weird.
        As you say, we have to get through more lessons, and the WW2 lesson was, in my understanding, processed by some kind of “disaster recovering=災害復興 status”, maybe elder people just got it through by this measure because we’re inherently good at recovering from natural disaster=自然災害, from ancient time ago.
        Thereby we Japanese totally failed to acquire an authentic defeated=敗戦国 mentality, or offender=加害国 mentality, instead of 災害復興 mentality.
        Furthermore, we’re very good at forgetting something.
        But it’s not going to stand to be any of our excuse, still another lesson is needed.

      • Justice1215

        BEFORE ITS TOO LATE

        I wish and hope not second lesson needed!!

        As Dr. Kissinger said:A conflict between China and the United States would be a disaster for both countries. And it would be impossible to describe what a victory would look like.
        So U.S. will support Japan but will never go to war with China.
        REPEATED anti-war demonstration with more and more participants will change Japanese politician’s way of thinking.Every politician do care about next election. Whether they can be re-elected depend on the votes from Japanese people.Time is running out now.You and your peace loving people have to take action now before it’s too late.

      • 思德

        “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

        Japanese people are not the only ones talented at forgetting things- all humans sadly share this quality.

    • Ian

      The islands dispute is merely PLA planning at its worst. China’s army needs a strategy in order to protect its indefensible sea coasts. In doing so China is simply creating enemies out of Japan, Vietnam and the Phillipines, as well as America. As per the usual, insular “group think” hyper-optimism drives PLA strategic planning, as no dissenting opinions are tolerated. This “room full of mirrors” group mindset let to military disasters such as attacking Taiwan in the early 1950s by sea, having one million Chinese soldiers die exposed to US air attack during the Korean War, invading post-war Vietnam, invading Tibet as a buffer state and other overly optimistic misadventures. Moreover, China is the aggressor in the islands dispute, not Japan. To state that Japan is the aggressor is wrong. Justice_First’s paranoid conspiracy regarding a Japanese Neo-fascist/imperialist agenda is ass backwards.

      • Ken5745

        You just show your ignorance once again. History has not meaning to you. If Japan abides by the 1972 shelf agreement there is no tension between Japan and China.

        For a change, think Ian, how could China be the aggressor when she was willing to shelf the islands dispute with Japan way back in 1972?

      • Ian

        You are ignorant due to your blind confirmation bias. For example, your insistence on a delayed “shelf” is merely subterfuge for China’s eventual domination of the islands. You display the empty reasoning of deluded, insular Politburo radicals. You are not “evidence based” due to your blind confirmation bias. Therefore truth is not your objective; you only want to win at any cost, just as the delusional PLA is doing — and thereby alienating Vietnam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan and other nations. You therefore ignore “big picture” reasoning due to your lack of critical thinking skills. Group-thought dominates your thinking just as it does the insular, hyper optimistic PLA. Your use of ad hominem attacks against me demonstrates this poverty of thinking skills. Try again…

      • Ken5745

        For a start your stereotyping that anyone who disagrees with you is a politburo radical shows you, like McCain are stuck in the cold war period. The problem with your warp thinking is that I am not from China.

        If Japan adheres to the ‘shelf’, both countries will now benefit from the development of the resources in the sea around the islands.

        How could that translate into “China’s eventual domination of the islands” is an enigma wrapped round a riddle in a maze of conundrums only in your delusional mind.

      • Ian

        Dear Ken;

        I did not state that you are Chinese (“Ken” is not typically a Chinese name!). You are delusional because you jump to defensive conclusions.

        Clinically delusional people jump to conclusions, need less evidence to be convinced of their bias, over adjust in their thinking, and have a need for closure (quick, easy explanations in order to surreptitiously settle a confounding issue, instead of using ongoing rational discourse). You display these “true believer syndrome” characteristics, don’t you? You are not a rational mind; you are a true believer in Chinese propaganda, no matter which nationality you are. You have the exact same reasoning as a radical Politburo member, though, don’t you?? They spout the same “jump to conclusions” rhetoric.

        As for the mythical Shelf Agreement, well, read the transcript of that meeting. The so-called “shelving agreement” is yet another Politburo group-thought delusion. According to the Asahi Shimbun, Premier Chou En-lai replied to his Japanese counterpart at the 1972 normalization meeting, “‘It is not good to discuss this [Senkaku Islands issue that Prime Minister Tanaka brought up at that meeting] at this time. This has become an issue because of (the discovery of) oil (in the region). Neither Taiwan nor the Unites States would pay any attention (to the issue) if it were not for oil.’”* Now how does Chou En-lai’s off-the-cuff retort get translated into a “shelving agreement”? There is no agreement. There is no claim of sovereignty even. The Premier simply blew off the issue! It was pure avoidance, not an “agreement.”

        See how highly optimistic, delusional current Chinese high officials manufacture “facts”? Such propaganda works well domestically, but not at all internationally. You are a victim of such jump-to-conclusions delusion.

        You wrote, “How could that translate into ‘China’s eventual domination of the islands’ is an enigma wrapped round a riddle in a maze of conundrums only in your delusional mind.” Your statement perfectly demonstrates the jump-to-conclusions, need for closure “true believer” syndrome. You are not rational. Why would China be sending war craft into the Senkaku region (and Philippines + Vietnamese contested islands areas) if they did not want to “dominate”? So who is the “delusional” one here, Ken? Stick to the facts!

        * Asahi Shimbun, NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONS: China claims it agreed with Japan to shelve the dispute in 1972, Japan denies, December 26, 2012.

      • Ken5745

        I did not state that you are Chinese (“Ken” is not typically a Chinese name!)….Ian says.

        Stop telling lies. By claiming that I allegedly ‘display the empty reasoning of deluded, insular Politburo radicals.” you thought I am from China. You are wrong.

        ‘Clinically delusional people jump to conclusions,’

        If you are indeed a learned Englishman you should know that under English law a delusional person is described under the McNaughton Rule.

        That person is so unaware of his surroundings that he is incapable of taking part in a debate like this, much less exposing your lies and hatred of China.

        “you are a true believer in Chinese propaganda, no matter which nationality you are.”

        And if you are an Englishman, you are the relic by-product of Britannia which once ruled the waves but now, like Tony Blair, it only waives the rules.

        Look the UK has only 65 million people vs 1.4 Billion in China. Why should anyone want to listen to your version of how the world should be run?

        “ You have the exact same reasoning as a radical Politburo member, though, don’t you??”

        And you have the same warp reasoning as Tony Blair, the war criminal.

        As for the mythical Shelf Agreement, well, read the transcript of that meeting..There is no agreement. ..”

        The problem with your lies is that as reported in the Japan Times dated June 12, 2013 “During his meeting in early June with Liu Yunshan, a member of its Political Bureau Standing Committee, Hiromu Nonaka, 88, said Japanese and Chinese leaders had agreed to shelve the territorial dispute when they normalized diplomatic relations in September 1972.”

        Mind you Mr Nonaka is not just anybody. He was a former chief Cabinet secretary.

        Mr Nonaka further said “I would like to clarify what happened at that time as a surviving witness who heard about the situation,”

        Check it out before you make a fool of yourself in the world stage.

        “See how highly optimistic, delusional current Chinese high officials manufacture “facts”?

        Not true.You are the one who are manufacturing and manipulating facts for your own nefarious agenda. You really need professional help.

        “Why would China be sending war craft into the Senkaku region (and Philippines + Vietnamese contested islands areas) if they did not want to “dominate”?

        There is no need for China or Japan to send any warship to patrol the Daioyu/Senkaku islands if Japan adheres to the ‘shelf’ agreement.

        As for the Philippines I have already addressed the issues. It’s the same reason why the Brits sent warships to the Falklands.

      • Ken5745

        I did not state that you are Chinese (“Ken” is not typically a Chinese name!)…says Ian.

        Stop telling lies. When you said “You display the empty reasoning of deluded, insular Politburo radicals.” you thought I am from China. You are wrong.

        ‘Clinically delusional people jump to conclusions,’

        If you are indeed an Englishman you should know that under English law a delusional person is described under the McNaughton Rules. That person is insane and so unaware of his surroundings that he is incapable of taking part in a debate like this, much less exposing your lies and hatred of China.

        “you are a true believer in Chinese propaganda, no matter which nationality you are.”

        And if you are an Englishman, you are the relic by-product of Britannia which once ruled the waves but now it only waives the rules.

        Look the UK has only 65 million people vs 1.4 Billion in China. Why should anyone want to listen to your version of how the world should be run?

        “ You have the exact same reasoning as a radical Politburo member,..”

        And you have the same warp reasoning of a war criminal..

        As for the mythical Shelf Agreement, well, read the transcript of that meeting…There is no agreement. ..”

        The problem with your lies is that as reported in the Japan Times dated June 21 2013 “During his meeting in early June with Liu Yunshan, the fifth-ranked member of the Chinese Communist Party and a member of its Political Bureau Standing Committee, Hiromu Nonaka, 88, said Japanese and Chinese leaders had agreed to shelve the territorial dispute when they normalized diplomatic relations in September 1972.”

        Mind you Mr Nonaka is not just anybody. He was a former chief Cabinet secretary.

        Mr Nonaka said “I would like to clarify what happened at that time as a surviving witness who heard about the situation,”

        Check it out before you make a fool of yourself in the world stage.

        “See how highly optimistic, delusional current Chinese high officials manufacture “facts”?

        Not true.You are the one who are manufacturing and manipulating facts for your own nefarious agenda and your hatred of China or is it jealousy?

        “Why would China be sending war craft into the Senkaku region (and Philippines + Vietnamese contested islands areas) if they did not want to “dominate”?

        There is no need for China or Japan to send any warship to patrol the Daioyu/Senkaku if Japan adheres to the ‘shelf’.

        As for the Philippines I have already addressed the issues. It’s the same reason why the Brits sent warships to the Falklands.

      • 思德

        I don’t disagree with the gist of your post. However, the loss of all those Chinese soldiers in Korea only matters if the country actually cares. They do not. Neither the Chinese leadership, nor their people who are indoctrinated to believe it was a matter of maintaining their independent existence (ie we don’t want a democracy next door). As far as Tibet goes, they “won”, so while it was adventurism, it was successful adventurism, so I’m not sure it serves as a vehicle to impress upon anyone the failures of the PLA.

        Vietnam is probably the best example of foolish adventurism, simply because they lost thousands of troops for no reason except that Deng Xiaoping was incensed with Vietnam’s unwillingness to be a pawn or let Pol Pot continue to murder its nationals in border attacks.

      • Ian

        Touché regarding Tibet, although occupation of such a peace-loving country demonstrates that the PLA are not above imperialism. As such it is a public relations nightmare. Thanks for your support!

  • justice_first

    The world will surely find, and continue to find Japan’s “insistence” that there is no dispute a most bizarre behavior for a nation of such intelligence. Japan nearly always say that China did not protest after WW2 about the sovereignty of these islands, and thus China was acquiescing that the islands were Japanese. This is pure fancy because China had no need to protest because it had the right of sovereignty after the war, as stipulated in the various international treaties, including the instrument of surrender. It was only when this right was in doubt that the right holder nation needs to protest to confirm its sovereignty.

    The US was not laying any claim on the islands from 1945 to 1972, during the trusteeship, and China had no need to claim its sovereignty, but only to protest to the US ( not to Japan) for “handing over” the islands without China’s permission.

    I can’t see why China should agree, despite the obvious, that there is “no dispute” over the issue with Japan.

  • Ken5745

    It’s a no brainer. If Japan wishes to Improve the ‘chilly Japan-China ties’ and saves its 24% export to China, all it has to do is to respect the agreement made by Tanaka and Zhou Enlai in 1978 to ‘shelf’ the decision on the disputed islands to future generations of both nations to decide.

    Abe’s illogical stance that there is no dispute over the islands will lead to the revival of militarism in Japan, which could pave the way for another senseless war.

    Peace and prosperity are better options for Japan.

    • justice_first

      sometimes, I feel the omen, that Japan, under the leadership of the right wing government, is not really interested in peace with China. With Japan’s worship of the sword, in its hurry to rearm, on the road to militarism, history might just repeat itself. Of course a lot of what Abe is doing is completely illogical, contrary to Japan’s best interest.

      Can Japan become a great nation. I really doubt it.

      • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

        Yes I feel omen too.
        In my undertanding, it is something coming up from our trait.
        It is all about “too much reflection of pursuing intimacy with the guardian”, then it is worsened when we sensed a possibility of getting abandoned.
        Trying not to get abandoned from US, it is an essence of what Japanese militarists are doing now, and it is a same thing with what all of our postwar goverments had committed, but different only in its level of appearing or proceeding, more stark.
        It is not going to end unless we sense the guardian’s inappropriateness, or another party to be appropriate.
        Problem is, we’ve been convinced for much long time, that there’s no other guardian but the present one.
        No delivered idea for becoming a great nation, we don’t have such one in the first place, because we have no self-made logic to justify to be like that, then our ancestors were failed by not succeeding to justify it.
        Such a logic is only Chinese people authentically have, but we never do, can’t either.

      • justice_first

        I have taken my time to think through what exactly you are talking. It should be something quite deep, concerning some basic differences in thinking, in concepts between Chinese and Japanese in both their vision and hope. I must admit the two cultures are quite different to warrant deeper study by scholars on both sides. Sometimes, it may be even said that there are deep misunderstanding between the two cultures. From what you have brought up, which is extremely interesting, I can see these differences as critical differences, leading to two different value systems. Unless there are more communications between the two nations, misunderstanding can once again bring great misfortune to this part of the world. You are therefore the light.

      • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

        Thank you for your reply, I’m really happy to get it from you, and sorry in case if it doubled.
        I appreciate the time you were taking for, it is really grateful with me.
        As for our difference, I only knew few things about basic principles what Chinese people weigh, through my friend, but it was too rich experience to make me convinced.
        I knew what Chinese people take care of most, and when they feel getting disgraced, also when they are going to be tolerant.
        My friend taught me all by his attitude, that Chinese people just want to have a relationship with neighbors quietly, peacefully, with no hegemonic desire.
        Since then, few Chinese people I could be in touch with, were telling me quite the same thing by each time, and I’ve got convinced more, that we can get along with Chinese people, if only we have respect.
        It is not so difficult if we’re well aware of it, but somehow recently couldn’t.
        The idea Chinese people authentically have is not about hegemony, and their force is not going to get adopted for achieving any ambition, but prepared for defending themselves from invasion.
        Because historically, they had got annoyed too much times by intrusion.
        Thus I understand there’s no threat we should feel, by any of force China acquires, since it is never meant against for Japan.

      • 思德

        The problem is that Average Zhou is not running China, a cabal of political royalty is. And they are very different from the average Chinese person.

      • Ken5745

        And in case you have not found out already, the US is run by a cabal of Zionists, with allegiance to Israel.

        Ask yourself as an average American: who owns the media, the banks, Wall Street, the FED, Hollywood, both houses of the Congress and the man in the White House? Why is the US giving $3 billion to Israel every year in aid when 47 million Americans are on food stamps?

        Why America is spending vast treasures and blood to fight in Israel’s wars? $6 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq so far. An estimated 6000 killed and 300,000 wounded.

        Next will be Syria and Iran.

        Why Rumsfeld admitted on the eve of 911 that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion? And why that section of the Pentagon, where a group of accountants were tracing the missing money was destroyed by purportedly a B757, when the hole it left behind could only fit a missile?

        Why the WTC7 fell onto its own footprint in 9 seconds without being hit by an aircraft, the first time in human history for a steel-reinforced building !

        Go and figure why the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has always been a Zionist, except once since the Federal Reserve Act was enacted in 1913.

        Google and see why 8 families own the FED, which is not a govt agency and will not honor the FOIA.

        Why the FED is as ‘federal’ as Federal Express.

      • Ken5745

        I think Japan has the attributes to be a great nation but unfortunately it is led by men who are blinded by hate and are out to avenge the humiliation Japan suffered as a result of the unconditional surrender in 1945.

        If Japan worships the sword and is in a hurry to rearm, the it better understands that the next war could be a thermonuclear war in which there will be no winner.

        And if the 52 nuclear reactors in Japan are destroyed during the next war, then Japan as a nation, with a limited land area, may no longer be viable due to intense radiation all over the country.

        Peace and prosperity are better options for Japan. Hope the current leaders of Japan come to their sense before it is too late.

      • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

        We have no inherence for being a great nation, ever since.
        Because we’re the people of “outlying”, just marginal, geologically, or culturally from the start, you know what I mean.
        No delivered idea for achieving it because we have no self-made logic to justify to be like that, then our ancestors were failed by not succeeding to justify it.
        Such a logic is only Chinese people authentically have, but we never do, can’t either.
        People who have no logic to justify it should not intend to become a “great one”, if only we learn from the past.
        There was a tragic incident happened for few times when our ancestors tried to be such a nation, we should not have that desire for the third time, for good.
        There’s another work for outlying people to do, but becoming great.

      • 思德

        “it is led by men who are blinded by hate and are out to avenge the humiliation Japan suffered as a result of the unconditional surrender in 1945″

        That is extremely cynical and presumptive, not to mention belies a basic understanding of democracy whereby political office can change hands between people of differing ideologies- unlike China, where there is only one ruling ideology.

        The talk about destroying Japan’s reactors is vile. If you are really so interested in peaceful coexistence of two countries, you would not discuss another nations ruin in such a cavalier fashion.

      • Ken5745

        If democracy in the United States meant that the voters could only select in 2008 either the madman McCain (bomb them to Hell) or the novice Obama (I have a drone) as president then you can keep it.

        If democracy is so great why is that Greece, its birth-place, is now a bankrupt and there is chaos in the streets? Why are the Hungary PIIS bankrupt too?

        Why is that the US cannot pay its bills, as admitted by Obama two days ago? Why is that the US has racked up a national debt of $16.9 trillion plus another $220 trillion in unfunded debts, covering Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

        Google Prof Lawrence Kotlikoff and learn more.

        If the US has differing ideologies why is that its post WW2 policy is endless wars whether the president is a Republican or a Democrat?

        I am not threatening to destroy Japan’s 52 reactors. It is a warning for Japan to value peace because it is a fact the reactors will be targeted in a war just like the US fire-bombed countless cities in Japan in ww2 before dropping two atom bombs on civilians “in such a cavalier fashion.”

        The Enola Gay is enshrined in a war museum so that future Americans can take pride in their air force incinerating 200,000 innocent civilians.

        As an American you should visit the Hiroshima Peace Center and apologize to the Japanese people. Talk is cheap.

      • 思德

        Actually, I don’t disagree with you, regarding American history and its propensity for needless adventurism. I’m a Libertarian, and personally am disgusted with the welfare-warfare state both parties have been busy trying to build since WWI, and especially since The Great Depression. That is ultimately an economic, not political discussion, however.

        The difference between China and the US is that in the US, people can wake up and demand different policy through political franchise and freedom of speech. The war in Vietnam ended for that reason, for example. I can see attitudes in Americans are changing and many are realizing that both of the major political parties are worthless. Those parties will either be changed internally or face competition by people with better ideas. Obama wanted very badly to strike Syria, but public opposition was very clear. He didn’t get his way. We are still arming rebels via the CIA sadly, but at least an overt strike has been thwarted.

        To be a little more on-topic, Japanese people are likewise able to, if they will be conscious about their situation, affect change. I am optimistic that Japanese people today are better informed and less susceptible to nationalism than they were in the early 20th century.

        Non-Party Chinese people can do no such thing, however, and in fact cannot even “wake up” because they have no freedom of information. Even if they do, it will be political prison for them. The only way out is armed revolt or very intense, en masse political protesting, which would probably wind up being armed revolt because the government response would likely not be gentle. And the Chinese government is busy trying to keep people just distracted and economically content enough to keep that from happening.

        Pointing to the errors of democracies does little to diminish the system if you keep in mind how badly it has performed relative to, say, authoritarianism. How many millions of Chinese died in the Great Leap Forward, the Korean War, the wanton attack on Vietnam, and so on? Rule by caprice is certainly not *better*.

        Democracies are only as good as the people voting in them, and require a certain measure of cultural development and awareness. This is a weakness in democracy. Americans are improving, I think. Perhaps, so are the Japanese. But the Chinese are badly hindered in this process, and have no franchise even if they do improve. So which country is more likely to cause problems- the one where its constituents can learn and become politically active without repercussions, or the one where they will go to jail if they do?

        Targeting Japan’s reactors is a completely moot point, because it is a MAD scenario nobody wants, including the CCP. Even if there was a war over the Senkaku islands, the odds of the Chinese intentionally targeting Japanese nuclear plants is unlikely, because they know the United States is right there, watching for that kind of behavior. Even if the United States were in a non-interventionist mood at the time of a hypothetical conflict over the Senkaku islands, it would certainly not stand by if such a thing were to happen. The Chinese leadership know this, and are not stupid. Chinese leadership may be authoritarian, but it is not stupid per se.

      • Ken5745

        “Actually, I don’t disagree with you, regarding American history and its propensity for needless adventurism.”

        Thank you. I don’t need to defend what I wrote because ‘Truth is like a lion which can defend itself’.

        “I’m a Libertarian, and personally am disgusted with the welfare-warfare state both parties have been busy trying to build since WWI, and especially since The Great Depression.”

        And your Founding Fathers will be spinning in their graves if they could see that the US has now acquired a ‘Military Empire’, exceeding in scale to that of Ancient Rome, with over 1000 military/support bases worldwide. And like the mistakes made by Rome which led to its demise, the US is wasting money like its water. Today the US spends $2 billion every SINGLE day on the Military, out of the $3.2 billion that the Obama borrows from the likes of China, Japan, the oil Shaikhs and the foreign-owned FED, when 45 million Americans are on food stamps. If that is not paving the way for an ominous skidding towards a fiscal cliff, make that canyon, then how do you term this profligacy?

        “The difference between China and the US is that in the US, people can wake up and demand different policy through political franchise and freedom of speech.”

        But you cannot eat the notion of freedom of speech. The 45 million Americans on food stamps can vouch for that. The Homeland Security has purchased 1.6 billion bullets and if Americans wake up to demand a violent change, let’s see who will be the ones facing the business-end of the AR15. Today NSA has a file on every American citizen, including everyone’s phone calls and emails, to add insult to injury. Though this violates the US Constitution, hell, this is America and the NSA can do what it likes. And Obama is complicit.

        The succinct difference between China and the US is that China has lifted over 750 million people out of abject poverty in the last 35 year while in the US the middle-class has been decimated and the American Dream has turned into a nightmare because with $16.9 Trillion of National debt, rising at the rate of $1.2 Trillion every year, it simply cannot pay its bills and with the millstone of $220 Trillion unfunded debt hanging around its neck , the inevitable result will resemble a slow-motion train wreck for decades to come. Google Prof Lawrence Kotlikoff.

        “I can see attitudes in Americans are changing and many are realizing that both of the major political parties are worthless. “

        There goes your multiparty democracy theory. If Democracy is so good why has the US Army not adopt it? China never had democracy since its inception 5,000 years ago. Why should it start now especially when it can see that Greece, the birth-place of democracy is now a bankrupt, with chaos in the streets? And Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, the US,UK, and Spain are next.

        “Obama wanted very badly to strike Syria, but public opposition was very clear.”

        Not true. It’s because he recalls that as a Senator in 2007, he said the President has no power under the US Constitution unless the US is under actual attack or under imminent threats. But Syria is no threat to the US.

        “We are still arming rebels via the CIA sadly, but at least an overt strike has been thwarted.”

        Since three-quarters of the rebels are terrorists like al Qaeda and al Nusra this is called “aidding the enemy” which is an act of treason.

        “I am optimistic that Japanese people today are better informed and less susceptible to nationalism than they were in the early 20th century.”

        When they voted for Abe and his cabal I lost hope in the Japanese people for now.

        ‘Non-Party Chinese people can do no such thing, however, and in fact cannot even “wake up” because they have no freedom of information.”

        There are more net-citizens in China than the whole population of the USA. I have been to China many times and I could access the net anywhere I went. You show that you have not been to China recently or at all.

        “The only way out is armed revolt or very intense, en masse political protesting, which would probably wind up being armed revolt ..”

        Why revolt when China is now the second biggest economy in the world and China is a banker to the United States? This year about 250 million Chinese tourists will be descending on choice destinations all over the world,scooping up branded goods. Why rock the boat when you are sipping champagne, with caviar canapes?

        “Pointing to the errors of democracies does little to diminish the system if you keep in mind how badly it has performed relative to, say, authoritarianism.”

        What most Westerners cannot appreciate is that China operates like a huge proverbial National Army to ward off the predatory West, since the humiliation of foreign conquests, wanton massacres plus two Opium Wars since 1644 are still fresh in their minds. And tell me when was the last time you had democracy in the US army?

        “How many millions of Chinese died in the Great Leap Forward, the Korean War, the wanton attack on Vietnam, and so on? Rule by caprice is certainly not *better*.”

        How many million Native Americans died in the theft of the Wild Wild West? How many American soldiers died in the American Civil Wars, the Vietnam war, the Korean war, the Iraq war, and the war in Afghanistan? How many Vietnamese and Iraqis died in US manufactured wars?

        ‘Democracies are only as good as the people voting in them, and require a certain measure of cultural development and awareness. This is a weakness in democracy. “

        The weakness in a democracy is that the voters have intuitively learned that they can vote themselves a largesse never mind if the country goes bankrupt. Look around the democratic West, which, btw, is the minority on Planet Earth with only about 9% of its total population and you will see red ink all over the fiscal landscapes.

        “Even if there was a war over the Senkaku islands, the odds of the Chinese intentionally targeting Japanese nuclear plants is unlikely, because they know the United states is right there, watching for that kind of behavior.”

        I agree, it is unlikely to happen in a local skirmish but all bets are off if it is the Third World War.

      • Ian

        Japan is not the aggressor in this case. The PLA is. Because the Chinese military is flush with cash it can now flex its muscle. PLA planners are simply doing what they believe is prudent: to defend China’s indefensible thousands of miles of coastline. Yes, the geography of China, surrounded by potential enemies on all sides, is vulnerable. History may be repeated. The embarrassment of the Opium Wars still stings. All the British had to do was send battleships up a Chinese river and force the Qing dynasty to capitulate. So too the Americans under Admiral Perry used such “battleship diplomacy” to induce regime change in late 19th century Japan. Thus the PLA has been plagued with the coastline defense issue, but only gained enough resources in the 21st century to do anything about it. Unfortunately, PLA sabre rattling is bad for international trade confidence. The Chinese are simply making enemies out of neighboring countries. So, ironically, the newly acquired wealth of the PLA (combined with the insular, overly optimistic “group thought” tendency I commented about previously) could lead to economic disaster for China as a whole. Thus the PLA may “kill the goose that laid the golden egg.”

      • Ken5745

        If annexing China’s islands as a war booty is not an act of aggression then what is?

        And why are you so proud of Britain’s past egregious trafficking of opium into China and then waged two Opium wars when China wanted to stop the illicit trade? Are you nuts?

        I wish Britain would send ships to the Pearl river today to threaten China as they will all be sunk post haste.

      • Ian

        You are emotional more than rational. Instead, just deal with the facts. Leave out primitives emotions that only keep us in an unevolved state. You merely seek dominance and self esteem, not rational discourse. “If annexing China’s islands as a war booty is not an act of aggression then what is?” China annexed Vietnam for 1,000 years. But so what?! That is not the issue. Plus, bringing in “pride” is a juvenile distraction from my main point. That point: the islands meant nothing much to anyone until recently. The PLA needs to justify their newly acquired budgets. The islands issue is simply a precursor to wider hegemonic/defense goals. First goal is to improve Chinese defense security through acquiring larger buffer zones. The second is to “repatriate” the “renegade province of Taiwan.” Do you care about reality? Or only getting a self esteem boost through dominance?! Raise the level of your thinking, please…

      • Christopher-trier

        Had Chinese officials rejected the Opium trade it would have been stamped-out in the 18th century. The fact is that provincial officials were complicit in the trade, Chinese merchants distributed it (foreigners could not easily leave treaty ports and to distribute the illicit goods required a knowledge of where to bring it and connexions to sell it to), and tax revenues were supporting the Imperial court. The Qing were also more than capable of rebuffing the Royal Navy, by the way — the British only had superiority on the seas. The Qing had a capable and vastly larger army and would have crushed any invasion. They turned a blind eye, they didn’t care what happened in southern China so long as the money arrived.

      • Ken5745

        That is like claiming that the CIA is dealing in drugs. The Brits were drug traffickers because they ran out of silver to buy tea. Nice try.

    • http://ameblo.jp/cluttered-talk/ Michiko

      I agree, but one thing you’re referring to is incorrect.
      “Shelving promise” was made in 1972, just before the Communique was standed.
      This is not for tolerating and it is not a tiny thing, you may correct it “by yourself” again, not by my pointing.
      And be careful from the next time you referred to something historical.

      • Ken5745

        You are right. I was wrong to state that the original “shelving” discussion took place in 1978 between Kakuei Tanaka and Zhou Enlai. It was a typo error I guess because I know that both of them met in 1972 to normalize diplomatic relations. But the ‘shelf’ discussion was not formalized then.

        The 1978 ‘shelf agreement was made by Deng and Sonoda.

        According to the Asahi Shimbun dated 26 Dec 2012, Quote :

        “In an interview with The Asahi Shimbun in 1997, Zhang Xiangshan, former adviser to China’s Foreign Ministry, revealed another important diplomatic conversation on the issue between the two governments.

        The exchange took place in 1978,
        immediately before the signing of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China.

        In August of that year, Japanese Foreign Minister Sunao Sonoda visited Beijing to negotiate the treaty and met with Deng Xiaoping, who was China’s first vice premier.

        Deng said to Sonoda: “It is not that there is no problem between China and Japan. There is the Diaoyu Islands problem, for instance,” according to Zhang. “But we should not touch it now. We should put off (tackling the issue) and discuss it without haste in coming years. We should not accept the argument that we cannot conclude a treaty if we fail to agree on such an issue in 10 years.”

        Deng visited Japan in October 1978. In his news conference at the Japan National Press Club, Deng said when China and Japan negotiated the normalization of their diplomatic ties, they “promised not to touch the issue.This time as well, during the negotiations on the bilateral peace and friendship treaty, both sides agreed not to touch the issue.”

        The Chinese government believes Deng’s remarks in Tokyo reflected an understanding by Japan and China to agree to shelve the Senkaku issue.” Unquote.

        So Michiko, with respect to you, I think historically the 1978 ‘shelf promise’ in front of the Japan National Press Club should be the one to take precedence.

        But the bottom line is that China has honored the ‘shelf’ agreement and now its Japan’s turn to do so.

        Then hopefully there will be peace between the two neighbors, which are the second and third largest economies in the world.

        But Abe refuses to acknowledge that the ‘shelf’ agreement even exists. Therein lies the conundrum.

    • Christopher-trier

      Zhou Enlai died in 1976.

      • Ken5745

        If you care to read my remarks below to Michiko you will find that it was a typo. The shelf was made in 1972.

    • Ian

      If China wants to save its entire export-led economy then it should give up on the hegemonic islands issue. China’s grab for the islands is a precursor to attacking little Taiwan.

      Resultantly, the PLA is risking the ruin of Chinese economic strength. Investors require much confidence in a nation before they commit to investing their capital. Alienating Japanese investors has been a boon for Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia, for example.

      Abe’s “illogical stance” is the stance of most sane nations: retain the status quo because conflict is bad for business.

      • Ken5745

        The problem with your myopic argument is that if “Abe’s “illogical stance” is the stance of most sane nations” then he should adhere to Prime Minister Tanaka’s agreement to ‘shelf’ the dispute of the islands in 1972 to future generations to decide.

        Pretending there is no dispute over the islands, Abe shows an uncharacteristic disrespect to the legacy of the late Prime Minister Tanaka.

        Japan has a 260% debt over GDP, the highest in the developed nations and Its export to China represents 25% of its total exports.

        If Japan is intransigent then it is cutting its nose to spite his face like you are doing now.

      • Ian

        The “shelving agreement” is a concocted piece of propaganda. There was no formal written agreement, and not even an oral one. It is another politically manipulative delusion. Such propaganda is also directed against Vietnam and the Philippines in order to attack their islands, and chase away their fishing boats.

        As I wrote previous: The so-called “shelving agreement” is yet another Politburo group-thought delusion. According to the Asahi Shimbun, Premier Chou En-lai replied to his Japanese counterpart at the 1972 normalization meeting, “‘It is not good to discuss this [Senkaku Islands issue that Prime Minister Tanaka brought up at that meeting] at this time. This has become an issue because of (the discovery of) oil (in the region). Neither Taiwan nor the Unites States would pay any attention (to the issue) if it were not for oil.’”* Now how does Chou En-lai’s off-the-cuff retort get translated into a “shelving agreement”? There is no agreement. There is no claim of sovereignty even. The Premier simply blew off the issue! It was pure avoidance, not an “agreement.”

        See how highly optimistic, delusional Chinese high officials manufacture “facts”? Such propaganda works well domestically, but not at all internationally.

        *Asahi Shimbun, NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONS: China claims it agreed with Japan to shelve the dispute in 1972, Japan denies, December 26, 2012.

        Google this: History of the Senkaku Islands Dispute – Asahi Shimbun. Get the facts, will you?

        If I’m cutting my nose off, then you have given yourself a lobotomy. How’s that for an ad hominem attack? Right back at-cha, dude! Feel juvenile? Then raise the level of your emotional tone and be intelligent. Your personal attacks on opposing commenters makes your arguments even less attractive. You are your own worst enemy, confirmation bias delusions, and all.

  • Mike Wyckoff

    This is like the Arab – Isreali tension without the actual violence. Neither side trusts eachother and neither side thinks it is in the wrong.

    I can’t say that Japan is free from blame, but in the past 15 years that I have lived here, Japan has done NOTHING aggressive to stoke China to the point of invading Japan’s sea and airspace.

    As for the Senkaku islands, Japan has done enough to prove their ownership. and if China is using 8th century maps to show whose land it is, shouldnt all of Europe belong to Italy/Greece/Austria/Germany/or whoever else once ruled?

    • Ken5745

      “Japan has done NOTHING aggressive to stoke China…”

      Try the Sept 2012 nationalization of the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, when the US only handed the administration to Japan in May 1972 without any sovereignty, in violation of the Potsdam Declaration.

      If “Japan has done enough to prove their ownership” why did its ally, the US not hand sovereignty of the disputed islands to Japan?

      • Mike Wyckoff

        You really need to study a little more history. And Wikipedia doesn’t count. The senkaku island were an old fishing island privately owned with clear records showing previous habitation by Japanese around the 1900′s. It wasn’t until China’s economy moved out of 3rd world status that they became interested in the wealth surround the islands (ie:oil under the seabed) so of course china is going to start rattling its swords saying they own the islands. But that’s like saying Norway owns eastern canada because they settled there 1000 years ago. That’s just nonsense.

      • Ken5745

        You came into this thread late and did not bother to read all the posts and now you are making all sorts of silly claims. Its so annoying.

        So here again are remarks made by Japanese Professors and writers to show that Japan knew the Diaoyu belonged to China in 1885, well before annexing it in 1895 as a war booty :

        “In 1885, the Japanese Governor of Okinawa Prefecture, Nishimura
        Sutezo, petitioned the Meiji government, asking that it take formal control of the islands.”

        “However, Inoue Kaoru, the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, commented that the islands lay near to the border area with the Qing empire and that they had been given Chinese names. He also cited an article in a Chinese newspaper that had previously claimed that Japan was occupying islands off China’s coast. Inoue was concerned that if Japan proceeded to erect a landmark stating its claim to the islands, it would make the Qing empire suspicious.”

        “Following Inoue’s advice, Yamagata Aritomo, the Minister of the Interior, turned down the request to incorporate the islands, insisting that this matter should not be “revealed to the news media”.

        Source : Unryu Suganuma (2000). ‘Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations’ University of Hawaii Press. pp. 89–97. ISBN 0-8248-2493-8.

        Read the rest below in my post 6 day ago.

      • Mike Wyckoff

        The reason why I commented AFTER you as opposed to before you is because you, Eric Xin, justice_first and the ilk are spewing is non-sense. I’m sorry, I’m not going to let Chinese propaganda proliferate on this site.
        So if you don’t like having someone take the correct end of your slanted opinion, then don’t bother posting here!

      • Ken5745

        Then stick to history if you can.

    • Eric Xin

      Hey, funny you brought up Israel…they justify their borders based on a 2000 years old book without anything resemble an map at all! So if China is using 8th or 10th century maps, all the power to them.

      • Mike Wyckoff

        They don’t justify holding the Gaza Strip and West Bank because of the Old Testament, they justify it by saying its for self defence, so you totally missed the point. 8th to 10th century books state that they were aware of the islands but ceded control of them in as early as 13th century.

    • Justice1215

      On July 14 2012, Sun Kawasaki, international intelligence chief of the
      former Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan said Diaoyutai and its
      affiliated islands is not inherent territory of Japan

      • Ron NJ

        Google shows nothing that would backup your statement here when searching for “Sun Kawasaki Senkaku”, and as you have failed to provide any sources, I’m calling shenanigans on this. If such statements were made, it would have been front page news on every major Chinese news outlet in existence, so it should be dead easy to plug in those three words and get about fifteen bajillion links to back up your claim.
        Also, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is, as far as I know, still known as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so I’ve no idea why you used the word ‘former’ there. If you perhaps meant “former international intelligence chief of the MOFA” then his statement, if he in fact made one and actually was an/the international intelligence chief, would be made as a private citizen and thus be as weighty as /my/ stating that the islands are not the inherent territory of Japan, which is to say not so at all.

  • Eric Xin

    I find it funny this article spend its first few paragraphs telling its viewers about the illogical cost of all these hostility….then spend the rest of the article asking for Chinese concessions.

  • Justice1215

    Politicians are playing politic for its own interest and not for the people

    Many countries including Japan are manipulated by U.S. and still do not know. Or politicians are playing politic for its own interest and not for the people. During the last decade of 20th century,when U.S. was busy with Iraq and Afghanistan war. Asean plus three ( China,Korea and Japan ) were doing well with economic cooperation. China’s policy is to set aside territorial dispute and continue with economic cooperation and development. Every country was benefited from China’s economic development and cooperation. As China ,South Korea and Japan were about to sign trilateral FTA before signing Asean plus three FTA, U.S. pivot to Asia policy start on that very year. All of a sudden everything goes wrong among Asian countries. WHY ? Because U.S. cannot accept Asian countries becoming more and more prosperous and American empire is declining and falling.
    Limited war in Asia is good for America militarily,economically and politically. America is playing with fire because if war quickly escalate and spiral out of control WW3 is inevitable. So who is trouble maker is very clear.
    Being the one and only super power for many years,U.S. cannot accept multi-polar world. What U.S. doing now is just to delay the changing process.

    Let us hope that cooler heads prevail before things spin totally out of control.
    GOD BLESS .
    PEOPLE OF THE WORLD STAND OUT AND TELL YOUR POLITICIANS : IT’S ENOUGH. WE WANT TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH DIGNITY.

  • 孫君

    I’m Chinese. This article has made some really good points. Thank you very much