Diaoyu Islands News and Updates

[Soryu]

My comment on The Washington Post.

Chinese signaling in the East China Sea? | The Washington Post

need to swanky here !?

 

[我铛你个铛]

Diaoyu Islands, Ryukyu Islands belong to China since ancient times;
Chinese Qing government due to corruption during the incompetence, the Japanese occupation of the Ryukyu Islands (then a subsidiary of China State: Ryukyu country);
After World War II, Japan as a defeated, all need to return all occupied territories, including Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands, which is also clearly written in the international treaties, the Japanese territory only around four main islands. But when China fell into civil war, does not allow to take into account the Ryukyu Islands, Diaoyu, the then Chinese government (national government) to let the United States to help broker. Later, after the founding of New China, due to the factors between the United States and the new China, as well as system and so hostile to China, in 1971, the Ryukyu Islands and other islands to Japan, then China can not take into account, but never admitted Okinawa, Japan, the Diaoyu Islands owned by all. Now China is gradually stronger, more and more afraid of certain countries, continue to provoke China, to China's intelligence is not low, it will not be easily fooled, so there is the situation today. I want to say, as a Chinese person, saw the motherland became stronger and stronger, no longer being bullied! Long live the friendship between China and Pakistan!

 

[BoQ77]

Since ancient time China has only small area in Yangtze Delta.

 

[我铛你个铛]

Since ancient time China has only small area in Yangtze Delta.

ha..

 

[steelseries779]

Since ancient time China has only small area in Yangtze Delta.

Vietnamese LOW IQ shines again.

 

[Nike]

Diaoyu Islands, Ryukyu Islands belong to China since ancient times;
Chinese Qing government due to corruption during the incompetence, the Japanese occupation of the Ryukyu Islands (then a subsidiary of China State: Ryukyu country);
After World War II, Japan as a defeated, all need to return all occupied territories, including Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands, which is also clearly written in the international treaties, the Japanese territory only around four main islands. But when China fell into civil war, does not allow to take into account the Ryukyu Islands, Diaoyu, the then Chinese government (national government) to let the United States to help broker. Later, after the founding of New China, due to the factors between the United States and the new China, as well as system and so hostile to China, in 1971, the Ryukyu Islands and other islands to Japan, then China can not take into account, but never admitted Okinawa, Japan, the Diaoyu Islands owned by all. Now China is gradually stronger, more and more afraid of certain countries, continue to provoke China, to China's intelligence is not low, it will not be easily fooled, so there is the situation today. I want to say, as a Chinese person, saw the motherland became stronger and stronger, no longer being bullied! Long live the friendship between China and Pakistan!

have you take your medicine today? your gibberish doesn't sound right to me

 

[我铛你个铛]

have you take your medicine today? your gibberish doesn't sound right to me

Illiteracy

 

[Aepsilons]

Tokyo has reportedly made plans to create new military outposts on remote islands close to disputed territories in an apparent move to bolster Japan’s defense capabilities amid its ongoing territorial rows with China.

Some 350 Ground Self-Defense Forces could be stationed on the three islands near the disputed islands, known as Diaoyu in China and as Senkaku in Japan, Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun cited unnamed senior Japanese Ministry of Defense officials as saying.

The three uninhabited, disputed islets lie some 2,000 km southwest of Tokyo, and around 200 km north of Taiwan.

According to the report, Tokyo will be establishing three bases close to the strategic location – a base on Amami Oshima Island, Miyako Island (210 km southwest of the disputed islands), and Ishigaki Island (about 170 km south), each staffed by up to 150 soldiers.

Last month, Japan announced it was building a high-tech radar outpost on Yonaguni Island, due to become operational in 2016.

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said earlier that Japan had already made decisions to develop its military presence in the southwest and that research had been conducted. However, he added that: “At the moment, however, we have not decided on specific, concrete locations, such as those reported.”

The current absence of military troops close to the strategic islands has caused some concern to Japan, which believes it is making itself vulnerable in the face of an increasingly domineering Chinese approach.

While there has not yet been much grist of military confrontation, being largely confined to coastguard squabbles, close watchers have stated that some naval ships have been lurking beyond the horizon and suggest that further confrontation may be on the cards. Additionally, China has increased spending on its military in recent years, allegedly to develop a two-tier blue water navy – one capable of operating across the deep waters of open oceans, implicitly the Pacific.

In its territorial dispute with China, Japan was supported by US President Barack Obama last month.

Reference: The Japan Times


Saving Japan and China from a dangerous new conflict

NEW YORK – Prime Minister Shinzo Abe hoped to herald his economic reform program at Davos last month, Instead, people zeroed in on another of Abe’s comments: likening tensions between China and Japan today to those between the United Kingdom and Germany on the eve of World War I.

Abe wasn’t advocating war between Asia’s two biggest economies. His words, however, exposed a problem in Northeast Asia, one with roots in World War II, not the first: the lack of multilateral institutions to settle disputes matching those created in Western Europe after 1945. Such bodies — including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Community (later European Union) — have kept the peace in Europe for almost seven decades. In Asia, no such organizations were forged — bringing conflict today, however unintended, within the realm of the possible.

To understand why, one needs to look back at the messy way in which World War II ended in China. In 1945, the postwar settlement planned by the Allies, including the Soviet Union, envisioned the Nationalist China under Chiang Kai-shek as a pillar in Asia. Chiang’s forces had contributed significantly to the war effort against Japan, including the years from 1937 to 1941 before Pearl Harbor, when China fought essentially alone. Its wartime sacrifices, including some 14 million or more deaths and 100 million or so refugees, made it necessary to acknowledge a major role for China in the postwar order.

Within a year of Japan’s surrender, though, China had dissolved into civil war. The exhaustion and corruption of the Nationalist regime ensured its defeat by Mao Zedong’s Communists, who took power in 1949. Meanwhile, Japan had become a Cold War ally of the United States.

Mao’s decision to take up Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s challenge and assist North Korea in its attempted invasion of the South isolated China even further from the Western world. Caught up in a sterile debate on “who lost China,” the U.S. refused to recognize the People’s Republic. The chance for China to become a power broker in Asia was lost (Mao’s disastrous economic policies were to blame for this, too).

When Japan re-emerged from Allied occupation, it had no partner with whom to consider building a new regional security architecture.

In a remarkable ideological turnaround, there has lately been a partial rehabilitation of Chiang’s image in China, with particular focus on his record of resistance against the Japanese invasion. He took part in the 1943 Cairo Conference, where Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill hinted that after the war, China should reclaim all territories deemed to have been captured by Japanese imperialists.

The topic has great relevance to the current Diaoyu-Senkaku islands dispute. There should be an opportunity here for China to reclaim and use its legacy as the “forgotten ally” of World War II to build bridges with its neighbors. Yet it hasn’t yet managed to do so in a way that those neighbors find persuasive and consistent.

Japan, too, has mishandled opportunities to build a more stable platform for regional relations. Abe has used the initial success of his economic reforms to expand political space for the argument that Japan played a noble, liberating role in Asia before 1945 — an argument that finds few friends in Seoul or Singapore, let alone Beijing.

Refusing to understand why China and other Asian neighbors remain so sensitive about wartime history doesn’t help the Japanese government’s cause at a time when it needs friends: Witness the way that South Korea’s affections have shifted away from Japan toward China in the last year.

Japan and China have both shown they are capable of nuanced diplomacy when it is needed. In 1937, they went to war instead, and the confrontation ultimately led to the destruction of the regimes in both countries. Surely that experience should be incentive enough for them to seek some version of the settlement postwar Asia was always meant to have.

 

[我铛你个铛]

Tokyo has reportedly made plans to create new military outposts on remote islands close to disputed territories in an apparent move to bolster Japan’s defense capabilities amid its ongoing territorial rows with China.

Some 350 Ground Self-Defense Forces could be stationed on the three islands near the disputed islands, known as Diaoyu in China and as Senkaku in Japan, Japanese newspaper Yomiuri Shimbun cited unnamed senior Japanese Ministry of Defense officials as saying.

The three uninhabited, disputed islets lie some 2,000 km southwest of Tokyo, and around 200 km north of Taiwan.

According to the report, Tokyo will be establishing three bases close to the strategic location – a base on Amami Oshima Island, Miyako Island (210 km southwest of the disputed islands), and Ishigaki Island (about 170 km south), each staffed by up to 150 soldiers.

Last month, Japan announced it was building a high-tech radar outpost on Yonaguni Island, due to become operational in 2016.

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said earlier that Japan had already made decisions to develop its military presence in the southwest and that research had been conducted. However, he added that: “At the moment, however, we have not decided on specific, concrete locations, such as those reported.”

The current absence of military troops close to the strategic islands has caused some concern to Japan, which believes it is making itself vulnerable in the face of an increasingly domineering Chinese approach.

While there has not yet been much grist of military confrontation, being largely confined to coastguard squabbles, close watchers have stated that some naval ships have been lurking beyond the horizon and suggest that further confrontation may be on the cards. Additionally, China has increased spending on its military in recent years, allegedly to develop a two-tier blue water navy – one capable of operating across the deep waters of open oceans, implicitly the Pacific.

In its territorial dispute with China, Japan was supported by US President Barack Obama last month.

Reference: The Japan Times

Saving Japan and China from a dangerous new conflict

NEW YORK – Prime Minister Shinzo Abe hoped to herald his economic reform program at Davos last month, Instead, people zeroed in on another of Abe’s comments: likening tensions between China and Japan today to those between the United Kingdom and Germany on the eve of World War I.

Abe wasn’t advocating war between Asia’s two biggest economies. His words, however, exposed a problem in Northeast Asia, one with roots in World War II, not the first: the lack of multilateral institutions to settle disputes matching those created in Western Europe after 1945. Such bodies — including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Community (later European Union) — have kept the peace in Europe for almost seven decades. In Asia, no such organizations were forged — bringing conflict today, however unintended, within the realm of the possible.

To understand why, one needs to look back at the messy way in which World War II ended in China. In 1945, the postwar settlement planned by the Allies, including the Soviet Union, envisioned the Nationalist China under Chiang Kai-shek as a pillar in Asia. Chiang’s forces had contributed significantly to the war effort against Japan, including the years from 1937 to 1941 before Pearl Harbor, when China fought essentially alone. Its wartime sacrifices, including some 14 million or more deaths and 100 million or so refugees, made it necessary to acknowledge a major role for China in the postwar order.

Within a year of Japan’s surrender, though, China had dissolved into civil war. The exhaustion and corruption of the Nationalist regime ensured its defeat by Mao Zedong’s Communists, who took power in 1949. Meanwhile, Japan had become a Cold War ally of the United States.

Mao’s decision to take up Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s challenge and assist North Korea in its attempted invasion of the South isolated China even further from the Western world. Caught up in a sterile debate on “who lost China,” the U.S. refused to recognize the People’s Republic. The chance for China to become a power broker in Asia was lost (Mao’s disastrous economic policies were to blame for this, too).

When Japan re-emerged from Allied occupation, it had no partner with whom to consider building a new regional security architecture.

In a remarkable ideological turnaround, there has lately been a partial rehabilitation of Chiang’s image in China, with particular focus on his record of resistance against the Japanese invasion. He took part in the 1943 Cairo Conference, where Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill hinted that after the war, China should reclaim all territories deemed to have been captured by Japanese imperialists.

The topic has great relevance to the current Diaoyu-Senkaku islands dispute. There should be an opportunity here for China to reclaim and use its legacy as the “forgotten ally” of World War II to build bridges with its neighbors. Yet it hasn’t yet managed to do so in a way that those neighbors find persuasive and consistent.

Japan, too, has mishandled opportunities to build a more stable platform for regional relations. Abe has used the initial success of his economic reforms to expand political space for the argument that Japan played a noble, liberating role in Asia before 1945 — an argument that finds few friends in Seoul or Singapore, let alone Beijing.

Refusing to understand why China and other Asian neighbors remain so sensitive about wartime history doesn’t help the Japanese government’s cause at a time when it needs friends: Witness the way that South Korea’s affections have shifted away from Japan toward China in the last year.

Japan and China have both shown they are capable of nuanced diplomacy when it is needed. In 1937, they went to war instead, and the confrontation ultimately led to the destruction of the regimes in both countries. Surely that experience should be incentive enough for them to seek some version of the settlement postwar Asia was always meant to have.

Copy and paste the hard.

 

[Aepsilons]

What is the basic view of the Government of Japan on the Senkaku Islands?

There is no doubt that the Senkaku Islands are clearly an inherent territory of Japan, in light of historical facts and based upon international law. Indeed, the Senkaku Islands are under the valid control of Japan. There exists no issue of territorial sovereignty to be resolved concerning the Senkaku Islands.


What are the grounds for Japan's territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands?

• The Senkaku Islands were not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 that legally defined the territory of Japan after World War II. Under Article 3 of the treaty, the islands were placed under the administration of the United States as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands. The Senkaku Islands are included in the areas whose administrative rights were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands that entered into force in 1972.
• The Senkaku Islands have historically and consistently been part of the Nansei Shoto Islands which have been part of the territory of Japan. From 1885, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had been thoroughly conducted by the Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and through other means. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been not only uninhabited but also showed no trace of having been under the control of the Qing Dynasty of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on January 14, 1895, to erect markers on the islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan. These measures were carried out in accordance with the internationally accepted means of duly acquiring territorial sovereignty under international law (occupation of terra nullius). The Senkaku Islands are not part of Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores Islands that were ceded to Japan from the Qing Dynasty in accordance with Article II of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, concluded in April 1895.

What are the concrete examples of Japan's valid control over the Senkaku Islands?

• A resident of Okinawa Prefecture who had been engaging in activities such as fishery around the Senkaku Islands since around 1884 made an application for the lease of the islands, and approval was granted by the Meiji Government in 1896. After this approval, he sent workers to those islands and ran the following businesses: collecting bird feathers, manufacturing dried bonito, collecting coral, raising cattle, manufacturing canned goods and collecting mineral phosphate guano (bird manure for fuel use). The fact that the Meiji Government gave approval concerning the use of the Senkaku Islands to an individual, who in turn was able to openly run these businesses mentioned above based on the approval, demonstrates Japan's valid control over the Islands.
• Before World War II, the Central Government and the Government of Okinawa Prefecture conducted activities such as field surveys on the Senkaku Islands.
• After World War II, as the Senkaku Islands had been placed under the administration of the United States as part of Nansei Shoto in accordance with Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan could not exercise direct control over the Islands until the administrative rights were reverted to Japan on May 15, 1972. However, even during this period, the Islands remained as part of the territory of Japan, and this legal status of the Islands, which was that no foreign state had rights over them, with the only exception of the administrative rights which the United States was authorized to exercise over the Islands under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, was ensured through the valid control by the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands and the Government of the Ryukyu Islands.
• The following are some examples of valid control after the reversion to Japan of the administrative rights over Okinawa including the Senkaku Islands.
  • (1) Patrol and law enforcement. (e.g. law enforcement on illegal fishing by foreign fishing boats)
  • (2) Levying taxes on the owners of the Islands under private ownership. (in Kuba Island.)
  • (3) Management as state-owned land (in Taisho Island, Uotsuri Island, etc.)
  • (4) As for Kuba Island and Taisho Island, the Government of Japan has offered them to the United States since 1972 as facilities/districts in Japan under the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement.
  • (5) Researches by the Central Government and the Government of Okinawa Prefecture (e.g. Utilization and development research by Okinawa Development Agency (construction of temporary heliport, etc.) (1979), Fishery research by the Okinawa Prefecture (1981), Research on albatrosses commissioned by the Environment Agency (1994).)

Reference: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

What is the view of the Government of Japan on China's (and Taiwan's) assertions on territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands?

• None of the points raised by the Government of China and the Taiwanese authorities as historical, geographical or geological evidences provide valid grounds in light of international law to support their sovereignty over the Islands.
• Moreover, it is only since the 1970s that the Government of China and the Taiwanese Authorities began making their own assertions about the Senkaku Islands, which was after a survey conducted by an agency of the United Nations in autumn of 1968 had indicated the possibility of the existence of petroleum resources on the East China Sea, and attention was focused on the Senkaku Islands. Until then, they had never expressed any objections, including to the fact that the Islands were included in the area over which the United States exercised the administrative rights in accordance with Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. China has never explained why it had not expressed objections.
• There is a description of "the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan" in the letter of appreciation dated May 1920 sent from the then consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki concerning the distress which involved Chinese fishermen from Fujian Province around the Senkaku Islands. In addition, an article in the People's Daily dated January 8, 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands. Moreover, in a world atlas collection published in 1958 by a Chinese map-publishing company (reprinted in 1960), there is a clear description of the Senkaku Islands as the “Senkaku Group of Islands” and it treats them as part of Okinawa. Furthermore, from the 1950s onward, the U.S. military used some of the Senkaku Islands (Taisho Island and Kuba Island) as firing/bombing ranges while the islands were under the administration of the United States, but there is no record of China ever having protested it during that period.

【Reference: Background of China's (and Taiwan's) assertions】
In the autumn of 1968, an academic survey conducted by experts of Japan, Taiwan and Korea with the cooperation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) indicated the possibility of the existence of petroleum resources on the East China Sea, and attention was focused on the Senkaku Islands.

【Reference: Letter of appreciation from the consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki】(provisional translation)

In the winter of the 8th year (1919) of the Republic of China, 31 fishermen from Hui'an Country, Fujian Province were lost due to the stormy wind and were washed ashore on the Wayo Island, of the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan.
Thanks to the enthusiastic rescue work by the people of Ishigaki village, Yaeyama District, Empire of Japan, they were able to safely return to their homeland. With a deep response and admiration toward the people of the village who were willing and generous in the rescue operation, I express my gratitude by this letter. Consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki 　馮冕
20 May, the 9th year (1920) of the Republic of China

【Reference: The article on the People's Daily titled "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", dated 8 January1953】(Excerpt, provisional translation)

　"The Ryukyu Islands lie scattered on the sea between the Northeast of Taiwan of our State (note: China; same in the following text) and the Southwest of Kyushu, Japan. They consist of 7 groups of islands; the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daito Islands, the Okinawa Islands, the Oshima Islands, the Tokara Islands and the Osumi Islands. Each of them consists of a lot of small and large islands and there are more than 50 islands with names and about 400 islands without names. Overall they cover 4,670 square kilometers. The largest of them is the Okinawa Island in the Okinawa Islands, which covers 1,211 square kilometers. The second largest is the Amami Oshima Island in the Oshima Islands (the Amami Islands), which covers 730 square kilometers. The Ryukyu Islands stretch over 1,000 kilometers, inside of which is our East China Sea (the East Sea in Chinese) and outside of which is the high seas of the Pacific Ocean."

【Reference: "World Atlas Collection" (1958 (reprinted in 1960))】

　This was published by a Chinese map-publishing company in 1958. It clearly identifies the Senkaku Islands as “the Senkaku Group of Islands” and treats them as part of Okinawa. China claims that this atlas collection has a note saying that "part of the national border with China is based on an atlas made before the anti-Japanese war (that is, when Taiwan was a Japanese colony)"and that the content of this atlas published in 1958 does not support the argument that the Chinese government at the time recognized Japanese control of Senkaku Islands. However, the original text of the note only states that “the national border of China in this atlas was drawn based on an atlas of the Shen Bao daily (Chinese newspaper in those days) before the liberation from Japanese occupation (Chinese text: 本図集中国部分的国界線根据解放前申報地図絵制).” It is not clear which part specifically is the portion before the liberation. In this atlas, Taiwan is identified as part of the “People’s Republic of China” whereas the Senkaku Islands are identified as “the Senkaku Group of Islands”. It is unnatural that China remained to use the expression from the period when Taiwan was a colony of Japan only for the Senkaku Islands which China argues it belongs to Taiwan.




Reference:
Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Chinese government asserts that the Senkaku Islands had not been terra nullius (“land belonging to no state”) as Japan claims, but that they have been an inherent part of the territory of China from ancient times; that they had been discovered, named and used by the Chinese nationals before anyone else, according to historical documents; that Chinese fishermen had engaged in fishing and other productive activities in this area; and that people along China’s southeast coast had been using Uotsuri Island as a navigation beacon. It also asserts that during the Ming Dynasty, the islands were already discovered and recognized by imperial envoys of China and that these islets belonged to Taiwan, which was included in China’s maritime defense zone. What is the view of the Japanese government?

• Japan incorporated the Islands into Okinawa Prefecture after conducting thorough surveys from 1885 , while ascertaining carefully that these islands had not only been uninhabited but also showed no trace of having been under a control of any state including China.
• None of the arguments that the Chinese government or Taiwanese authorities have presented as historical, geographic or geological grounds is valid evidence under international law to support the Chinese assertion of its territorial sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands. Under international law, for example, the discovery of an island or geographical proximity alone does not evidence the assertion of territorial sovereignty. Recently, China has been asserting that it has historically owned the Senkaku Islands (meaning that it has not been terra nullius) based on many historical documents and maps existing in China. However, the contents of these documents, are completely insufficient as evidence to support China's assertion when those original documents are examined. Specifically,
  • (i) China asserts as follows: The Records of the Imperial Title-Conferring Envoys to Ryukyu (Shi Liu Qiu Lu) (1534) written by Chen Kan, an imperial title-conferring envoy from the Ming Court, clearly states that “the ship has passed Diaoyu Dao, Huangmao Yu, Chi Yu…Then Gumi Mountain comes into sight, that is where the land of Ryukyu begins” and, since “Gumi Mountain” is the present Kume Island, it means that the Senkaku Islands, located west of Kume Island, were the territory of China. China also asserts that in his book Records of Messages from Chong-shan (Zhong Shan Chuan Xin Lu) (1719), Xu Baoguang states that “姑米島琉球西南方界上鎮山” (Note: Mt. Gumi is the mountain guarding the southwest border of Ryukyu) and that this is also the ground for its assertion that the area west of Kume Island had belonged to China. However, although these documents showed that Kume Island belonged to Ryukyu, they did not have any reference that the Senkaku Islands, located to the west of Kume Island, belonged to the Ming or Qing Dynasty of China.
  • (ii) China also asserts that An Illustrated Compendium on Maritime Security (Chou Hai Tu Bian) (1561) compiled by Hu Zongxian included the Senkaku Islands on the “Map of Coastal Mountains and Sands” (Yan Hai Shan Sha Tu) and that these groups of islands were incorporated into the jurisdiction of the coastal defense of the Ming Court. The book, however, is not clear regarding whether these groups of islands were within the coastal defense of the Ming Court. The mere fact that the Senkaku Islands were printed on that map does not mean that they were generally regarded as territory of China at that time.
• Rather, investigations in Japan have confirmed the presence of examples showing that since the 20th century, even through the 1950s and 1960s, China has recognized the Senkaku Islands as Japanese territory. Examples:
  • (i) From the 1950s onward, the U.S. military used part of the Senkaku Islands (Taisho Island and Kuba Island) for firing/bombing ranges while the islands were under the administration of the United States, but there is no record of China ever having protested it during that period.
  • (ii) There is a description of "the Senkaku Islands, Yaeyama District, Okinawa Prefecture, Empire of Japan" in a letter of appreciation dated May 1920 and sent from the then consul of the Republic of China in Nagasaki concerning the distress around the Senkaku Islands that involved Chinese fishermen from Fujian Province.
  • (iii) An article in the People's Daily dated January 8, 1953, under the title of "Battle of People in Ryukyu Islands against U.S. Occupation," wrote that the Ryukyu Islands consisted of seven groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands.
  • (iv) Moreover, the "World Atlas Collection" published by a Chinese map-publishing company in 1958 (reprinted in 1960) clearly identified the Senkaku Islands as "the Senkaku Group of Islands" and treated them as part of Okinawa.

Reference:
Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs

 

[Aepsilons]

China is strongly objecting to the Japanese government’s acquisition of the ownership of three Senkaku islands in September 2012. How does the Japanese government view such objection?

• There is no doubt whatsoever that the Senkaku Islands are an inherent part of the territory of Japan in light of historical facts and based upon international law. Indeed, those islands are under the valid control of the Government of Japan. There exists no issue of territorial sovereignty to be resolved concerning the Senkaku Islands. The Government of Japan’s acquisition of the ownership of the three Senkaku islands will not give rise to any problem with another country or region.
• On the other hand, it is true that the Chinese government is making its own assertions on the Senkaku Islands. While Japan does not accede to such assertions, the Government of Japan has been explaining to the Chinese government from a broad perspective that the recent ownership transfer was aimed at maintaining and managing the Senkaku Islands peacefully and stably on a long-term basis and that the transfer is nothing more than returning the ownership from a private citizen to the Government, with which the ownership rested until 1932. The Government of Japan, as a country sharing responsibility for the peace and stability of East Asia, will continue to call upon the Chinese side to behave calmly without losing sight of the overall relationship between the two countries.
• It is a matter for deep regret that violent anti-Japanese demonstrations took place in various parts of China, with some people throwing rocks and debris at Japanese diplomatic missions, physically injuring Japanese citizens, and setting fire on, damaging and looting facilities of Japanese business establishments. Regardless of reasons, violent acts must never be tolerated, and any dissatisfaction resulting from difference in views must be expressed in a peaceful manner. Japan is asking China to ensure the safety of Japanese citizens and businesses and to compensate properly the damage incurred by Japanese businesses.

Reference:
Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs

 

[xesy]

China claims land and islands for itself but show very little historical evidences and avoid dealing through international laws and peace talks. China brushes off any arguments and evidences from Japan, Vietnam or Philipine. China hold their claims without any supporting and ignore other nations claims. China is ready to resort to violence to achieve their goal.
-->That, my man, is the current China you are dealing with.

 

[BoQ77]

I have my belief in the way of Nihonjin1051 showing the evidences of Japanese right in Senkaku islands.
Mention that I have my own previous post, to request renaming this thread to include the Senkaku islands name in it.

Someone created this in his purpose denies the Japanese right and no one hear my request to correct it.

 

[Danny2014]

What is next? China is going to claim Hawaii? Oh wait they already did.

 

[rott]

What is next? China is going to claim Hawaii? Oh wait they already did.

You already did claim and conquer America didn't you? So what's your point?