Tag Archives: senkaku

Brownface (brownbelly?), Asians who can’t befriend Westerners, US SoS Kerry and JDG forgets his story

White belly dancers are destroying my culture, especially the slim ones!

A look from the other side of the “I can’t make any Japanese friends!” theme.

Recently, the US Secretary of State said this:

Our position on the Senkakus has not changed. The United States recognises de facto Japan administration of the islands but takes no position on the question of parties’ sovereignty claims thereto.

Oops, my mistake, that was about the Falklands! However, it is almost identical to his recent Senkaku statement:

The United States, as everybody knows, does not take a position on the ultimate sovereignty of the islands. But we do recognize that they are under the administration of Japan

I found that out when I was flaming the ex-British ambassador again, this time wondering why Japan refuses to acknowledge a dispute, just like the UK goverment refuses to do regarding the Falklands.

Jim Di Griz claimed to have returned back to Blighty, although my logs say something different, but here he describes how to watch Top Gear in Japan.

Japan Focus once again waves the flag for China

It’s Japan Focus time again, with an article entitled "Much Ado over Small Islands: The Sino-Japanese Confrontation over Senkaku/Diaoyu". Before I get into the details, I will say that there are a couple of interesting claims that I’d like to hear more about.

So, off we go:

the San Francisco Treaty that purportedly resolved the Asia-Pacific War

"Purportedly" gives you an early indication of how the article is going to go.

In a draft paper prepared in 1950, soon after the Chinese Communist party came to power, it referred simply to the islands by their Japanese name as "part of Okinawa." Some doubt must remain on the status of this proposal until the actual document is published

We see that China thinking the Senkakus were Japanese is "doubtful", according to the author.

In 1943, he [US President Franklin Roosevelt] considered China’s claim to the Okinawan islands as a whole so strong that he twice asked Chinese president Chiang Kai-shek whether he would like to take possession of them in the eventual post-war settlement. Chiang, in a decision he is said to have later deeply regretted, declined.

That is an interesting new claim that I’d like to hear more about, although is "he considered China’s claim […] so strong" actually true, or is this wishful thinking by the author?

Why then, did the US split Senkaku from Ryukyu in 1972? Hara Kimie, Toyoshita Narahiko, and others, attribute the decision to Machiavellian US design.


occasional landings (by Chinese activists from a Hong Kong base and by Japanese rightists sailing from ports in Okinawa)

What’s the difference between an activist and a rightist?

In 2010, the Democratic Party of Japan’s government arrested the Chinese captain of a fishing ship in waters off Senkaku

Err, the DPJ or the government did not arrest him, it was the coastguard and police, and there was the small matter of the captain ramming a coastguard vessel twice, and the government did its best to try to pervert the course of justice to appease China.

Protest demonstrations followed in Hong Kong and cities and towns across China – cars were overturned, Japanese restaurant windows smashed, Japanese goods trashed

Err, what about the two department stores trashed top to bottom?

In April Diaoyu was for the first time declared a “core interest,” and in May the People’s Daily added that the status of Okinawa itself had to be negotiated.

And that is not worthy of any comment or analysis?

When the Government of Japan “nationalized” the “Senkakus” in 2012, it acted in relation only to the three of them nominally in private hands.

The scare quotes and phraseology is straight out of the Chinese playbook.

They are commonly known, even to the Japanese Coastguard, by their Chinese names, Huangwei and Chiwei, rather than their Japanese names, Kuba and Taisho

Can we get a reference for that one?

the inequity in the hand China is bequeathed by its forbears because they did not establish a chain of island colonial and dependent territories like the other powers of the early modern and modern world


Although anti-Japan sentiment in China is undoubtedly subject to some manipulation by government

You sure on that point? :facepalm:

if, for example Japan were to successfully to extract some resource, to attempt then to transport it across the Ryukyu Trench to Japanese markets would also be forbiddingly difficult and expensive

No. The Chunxiao gas field at least is quite far north of the Senkakus, so that avoids most of the trench issues, I think.

The election in Japan late in 2012 of a government of “Shinto” believers


who were denialists of Nanjing and “Comfort Women”

No, there are people in the government who disagree with the number of people killed at Nanking, and no-one (that I am aware of) in government denies that Comfort Women existed, it is the compulsion issue that is being debated by people, including Hashimoto.

Japan’s claim is rhetorical, ambiguous, manipulative, and hostile to compromise or negotiation, yet few doubt that the Japanese position is "fundamentally solid and quite tenable under existing international law."

So, Japan’s claim is correct, then. (Note, the author previously established that morality should trump the law.) How about describing China’s claim?

Cooperative arrangements for fisheries and resource extraction had been put in place in parts of this sea before the crisis that erupted in 2010 froze most of its mechanisms

So, it is all China’s fault, as I noted above. Existing fishing agreements did not include the EEZ, and it was the Chinese captain doing the illegal fishing and the ramming.

Japan Times returns to form over Senkaku

(BTW, they also give Arnie Gundersen far too much space, but that’s another story.)

In a story that starts off promisingly, looking at right-wing loon Akihiro Suzuki and his hate for China:

The Japanese must stand tall, not be afraid, and "take pride" in "defending our territory from China," says Suzuki, who refers to Japan’s biggest neighbor throughout our interview with the derogatory wartime term "Shina." "We have truth and history on our side."

However, it soon deteriorates into rather pro-China territory, and makes erroneous assumptions with false authority.

Kyodo rehearsed the now-standard Japanese narrative of the dispute this weekend, saying that the Senkakus "have effectively been held by Japan since 1895 except for when the U.S. seized them briefly after the war." The news agency continued: "After it was reported in the 1970s that the area around the islets may have vast mineral and gas reserves, China laid claim to them."

OK, that’s basically where I stand.

Well, that’s one version of the truth, though hardly the only one. In China, many believe that Japan claimed the islets during a period of imperial expansion, at the end of the Sino-Japanese War — then kept the seizure secret for half a century. The Americans occupied them (as part of the Okinawan chain) from 1945-1972, after which many in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China expected them to be returned. Chinese claims hardly came out of the blue.

I’d expect a bit more evidence than "many believe", although there is a link at the bottom of the story to this, which I’ll look at later.

Although the two nations have roughly the same amount of coastline, Japan enjoys a total exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 4.5 million sq. km in the high seas, five times more than its much bigger and more populous neighbor.

So? simple geometry will tell you that a vaguely straight coastline hemmed in by other countries will have a much smaller EEZ than hundreds of islands dotted throughout open water.

Tokyo takes these EEZs very seriously. Consider its jurisdiction of a string of islands extending into the Pacific. At the farthest reaches is Okunotorishima (literally "remote bird island"), almost 2,000 km from the capital, roughly the same distance as from London to Reykjavik, Iceland.

It’s Okinotorishima, an error copied from the referenced article for this story, it seems. I’m also pretty sure Hawaii is more than 2,000 km from Washington. However, I do think the claims on this rock is very weak, but that’s another story.

Says McCormack: "From the Chinese viewpoint the Okinawan islands resemble nothing so much as a giant maritime Great Wall . . . potentially blocking naval access to the Pacific Ocean."

Indeed it is. Is Mr McCormack validating China’s claims on the whole of Okinawa?

Perhaps all this has been explained in the Chinese and Japanese media and we simply missed it.

Sigh, here is the appeal to ignorance. Yes, you simply missed it. I’ve heard all the above on various news and current affairs programs.

Dwyer concludes that there is no need to panic over China’s rise, but warns, "Don’t provoke the Chinese by hemming their country in with air bases, carrier fleets and military alliances, and they’ll probably behave well."

Call me brainwashed or whatever, but if Japan cedes the Senkakus to China, I do believe that it will move on to other Okinawa islands. China’s also not behaving terribly well in the South China Sea, but I’m sure that’s also all our in the West’s fault. :roll:

Suzuki, the only member of the Tokyo assembly to land (illegally) on the Senkakus, insists his hardline stance is popular. "Ninety percent of my constituents support what we did," he says. Perhaps that’s because the people who vote for him believe everything they read in the newspapers.

Two appeals to ignorance, from both Suzuki and JT here. :facepalm:

Now, on to the referenced document, "Troubled Seas: Japan’s Pacific and East China Sea Domains (and Claims)" on Japan Focus. :roll: A rant with footnotes does not an academic article make.

Commonly denounced for its [China’s] claims to islands, reefs and shoals in the South China Sea, when viewed in global terms China is a minor player in its claims on world oceans, although that fact might reinforce its determination not to yield in the spaces where it has a claim.

Aww, poor widdle China; let’s give them what they want (regardless of if it is valid or not) as we were awfully beastly to them before.

The islands (sometimes also known as the Bonin Islands), were first formally claimed by Japan and a Japanese flag was raised over them in 1862.

That was before the USA claimed Hawaii.

Since then, however, though not setting foot on them for 70 years, they have continued to collect "rent" from the Government of Japan

Why the scare quotes around rent?

There is little dissent in Japan from the proposition that, in the words of former senior diplomat Togo Kazuhiko, Japan’s position is "fundamentally solid and quite tenable under existing international law."

If the author of this article doesn’t believe the Japanese claim, why does he not question why China doesn’t bring this issue to the International Criminal Court? One reason is that China hasn’t ratified it…

Where Japan’s claim rests on a strict reading of international law (the terra nullius principle, unchallenged by China until 1970), China’s claim rests rather on longer history (and geography).

The author’s argument seems to be that international law is biased against China.

Then, the captain of a Chinese fishing boat that collided, twice, with a Japanese coastguard vessel in waters off these islands was arrested and subsequently released when the furore the event caused threatened to spin out of control.

No, he rammed two coastguard vessels, and "spin[ning] out of control" could describe the author’s position quite well.

Ishihara accused China [of…] "seeking hegemony in the Pacific, with the Senkaku/Diaoyu issue merely the first step of its ambition."

If you are quoting Ishihara, I’m pretty certain he wouldn’t say "Senkaku/Diaoyu".

A little later, asked for a comment on the birth of a baby panda at Ueno Zoo, [Ishihara] suggested it be named "Senkaku" and sent back (sic) to China.

No, he said "Sen-Sen" and "Kaku-Kaku", and there should be no "(sic)" as the panda loan agreement states that all cubs are Chinese property so they would be sent back.

Seven of them landed, this time carrying both PRC (China) and ROC (Taiwan) flags, before being detained, sent briefly by Japanese authorities to Okinawa, and then deported without trial.

Just a nice day out for a picnic! However, for the Japanese:

Days later, on 19 August, came the Japanese riposte: a convoy of 21 vessels (150 people) including national and local assembly politicians and Ganbaru Nippon’s head, Tamogami Toshio (former Chief-of-Staff of Japan’s Air Self-Defence Force and a noted right-wing revisionist and agitator) and members of the National Diet’s "Dietmembers acting to protect Japan’s territory") sailed from the Okinawan island of Ishigaki, planted Japanese Hinomaru flags and conducted ceremonies to commemorate Japan’s war dead. They were given a pro forma official rap over the knuckles for having done so without authorization, accompanying a generally positive and congratulatory national reception.

Although it is not clear from the above, just 10 people landed, and I must have missed the "generally positive and congratulatory national reception" while I was watching the Chinese getting a heroes’ welcome in Hong Kong. :roll:

By this time, passions ran high on all sides. Anti-Japanese disturbances broke out in Hong Kong and more than 20 cities across China – cars were overturned, Japanese restaurant windows smashed, and boycotts of Japanese goods threatened. Negative sentiments were reciprocated in Japan. An opinion poll conducted by the Japanese cabinet in November 2011, less than a year before this hot summer, found that 71.4 per cent of Japanese people reported having no feelings of "familiarity" or "warmth" (shitashimi) for China (against 26.3 per cent who had such feelings).

71.4% not warming to China – such high passions that surpass a riot disturbance! :roll: Furthermore, the survey actually reported 34.8% not really feeling warmth and 36.6% feeling no warmth at all.

One June 2012 survey found an overwhelming 84.3 per cent of people in Japan declaring their image of China to be "unfavourable." In China a survey conducted by a Communist Party paper Huanjing shibao (though only through its website) found 90.8 per cent of readers agreeing to the proposition that China should discuss all means, including military, for addressing the Senkaku/Diaoyu problem.

An "overwhelming" number of Japanese felt unfavourable to China, yet another 6.5 percentage points of Chinese calling for military action does not merit an adjective.

There is also a possible fourth party to the matter: the American family of descendants of the prominent late Qing official (Minister for Transportation), Sheng Xuanhuai, who by unconfirmed accounts was granted three of the islands by the then Empress Dowager, Cixi in 1893

And the grave of Jesus Christ is possibly in Aomori. :headdesk:

Through the hot summer of 2012, Ishihara’s bold populist rhetoric was matched by a rising tone of righteousness and fury at China in the Japanese media.

There may have been righteousness, but fury? Certainly I’ve not been aware of any in the mainstream media. Of course, there is no mention of Chinese media for balance.

Now I have actually had a look at a Japan Focus article in detail, it only confirms my feelings that any peer reviewing they perform is for checking writers are sticking to the party (Party?) line. :headdesk: