Is the U.S. Committed to Defend the Senkakus? Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan T

[Major Shaitan Singh]

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

On Sunday, September 23, NHK news broadcast a video of U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta seated next to and speaking with Chinese Vice Chairman and soon-to-be supreme leader Xi Jinping on September 19 in Beijing. During that meeting, reported NHK, Panetta told Xi that U.S. policy is that the Senkaku islands (claimed as Chinese territory by Beijing) are covered by the U.S.-Japan security alliance. If there is military conflict, the U.S. is obliged under the alliance to intervene.

What does Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Treaty actually say though? Here it is:

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security


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

 

[ahfatzia]

The US will never let her national securities and interests bind by a piece of paper and no one can blame her. She always leave some wiggle rooms whenever she signs any kind of agreement as in this case, the Article 5. If and when the conflict starts she'll weight all the issues carefully and decides.



“But the United States, as a matter of policy, does not take a position with regards to competing sovereignty claims.” Leon Pannetta said last week.

"We take absolutely no position on who is right, and we do believe that both sides need to try to resolve this." Gary Locke, Ambassador to China, said the week before.

 

[gambit]

The US will never let her national securities and interests bind by a piece of paper and no one can blame her. She always leave some wiggle rooms whenever she signs any kind of agreement as in this case, the Article 5. If and when the conflict starts she'll weight all the issues carefully and decides.



“But the United States, as a matter of policy, does not take a position with regards to competing sovereignty claims.” Leon Pannetta said last week.

"We take absolutely no position on who is right, and we do believe that both sides need to try to resolve this." Gary Locke, Ambassador to China, said the week before.

You should actually read the Treaty article, not the Forbes magazine article...

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

The highlighted is significant in that 'administration' does not equate to sovereignty. Shocking, ain't it?

For example, back in WW II when Imperial Japan controlled and ADMINISTERED Manchuria, technically speaking, Manchuria's sovereignty was never lost from China, only control and administration were lost. So if we attacked Imperial Japan in Manchuria, it does not mean we recognize China's claim to Manchuria, although we already did so it would have been pointless anyway. Imperial Japan was the aggressor on Chinese and many countries' home soil. We went to war to defend already claimed and acknowledged sovereignty for those countries.

An alliance of countries can appoint an administrator to a disputed territory in the interests of maintenance of law and order, of infrastructure, of economy, and so on...Without ceding sovereignty to any contestant claimant. A perfect example is when the US proposed that Indochina (Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia) be placed under UN administration towards independence from France. That does not mean the UN took any side or would claim any national sovereignty. It mean there would be a team of UN sponsored international experts in politics and law to guide the people towards the eventual administration of their own sovereign soil.

Get it?

 

[ahfatzia]

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security


When the pressure is on she can always pass the ball. The US didn't hire all these high price lawyers for nothing. Don't tell as a sovereign country, a powerful one at that, she would put her national security above someone's dispute, administrative or not.

Another thing is would the US being force into that position where she has to decide? I don't think so as you can see she's pushing Japan, and to a lesser extent, and China to solve the dispute peacefully.

 

[ahfatzia]

Japan to send foreign ministry emissary to China


TOKYO: Japan will send its top foreign affairs bureaucrat to China on Monday for a two-day visit, in a move aimed at cooling the diplomatic temperature in a fiery territorial dispute, officials said.

Vice Foreign Minister Chikao Kawai, the most senior unelected man in the ministry, will meet his Chinese counterpart "to discuss a wide range of bilateral issues based on the current situation," a ministry official said.

The announcement came a day after China said it was postponing long-planned events marking the 40th anniversary of ties and as the Japanese coastguard said three Chinese government ships were in waters around the disputed island chain.

Asia's two largest economies have wrangled about the islands -- known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China -- since the 1970s, but the row flared up again in August after pro-China activists landed on one of them.

Tensions escalated dramatically after the Japanese government subsequently bought three of the islands from their private owners earlier this month.

Japan to send foreign ministry emissary to China - Channel NewsAsia


There's no doubt in my mind both parties, with the US urging, will solve this dispute peacefully and keep the present status-quo. There are simply too much to lose for everyone concerned if war does break out.

 

[anon45]

Japan to send foreign ministry emissary to China


TOKYO: Japan will send its top foreign affairs bureaucrat to China on Monday for a two-day visit, in a move aimed at cooling the diplomatic temperature in a fiery territorial dispute, officials said.

Vice Foreign Minister Chikao Kawai, the most senior unelected man in the ministry, will meet his Chinese counterpart "to discuss a wide range of bilateral issues based on the current situation," a ministry official said.

The announcement came a day after China said it was postponing long-planned events marking the 40th anniversary of ties and as the Japanese coastguard said three Chinese government ships were in waters around the disputed island chain.

Asia's two largest economies have wrangled about the islands -- known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China -- since the 1970s, but the row flared up again in August after pro-China activists landed on one of them.

Tensions escalated dramatically after the Japanese government subsequently bought three of the islands from their private owners earlier this month.

Japan to send foreign ministry emissary to China - Channel NewsAsia


There's no doubt in my mind both parties, with the US urging, will solve this dispute peacefully and keep the present status-quo. There are simply too much to lose for everyone concerned if war does break out.

Beijing officials head to Japan to ease tensions over Diaoyus | South China Morning Post

It will be solved peacefully in the end I agree with that, barring actions from Chinese civilians that may cause their temporary detainment by Japanese authorities which could further deepen the dispute. This is all so much posturing at the moment, Japan still administers the islands, Chinese still rage about it. It is clear both sides government's don't want the dispute to deepen despite the rhetoric from China.

 

[gambit]

When the pressure is on she can always pass the ball. The US didn't hire all these high price lawyers for nothing. Don't tell as a sovereign country, a powerful one at that, she would put her national security above someone's dispute, administrative or not.

Fidelity to an ally, especially when such an ally has proven to be useful in Cold War containment of communism, is part of US national security. So there is no sacrifice of one for something else here. I hope that this line of thinking by you permeate the entire Chinese political leadership. It will make the political isolation of China much easier because the world will perceive China as an unreliable partner in any alliance.

Another thing is would the US being force into that position where she has to decide? I don't think so as you can see she's pushing Japan, and to a lesser extent, and China to solve the dispute peacefully.

Who wants and likes to be forced into a corner or to decide between two or more interests? Does China? So what is wrong with asking all parties to resolve a conflict thru diplomatic solutions?

 

[ahfatzia]

Fidelity to an ally, especially when such an ally has proven to be useful in Cold War containment of communism, is part of US national security. So there is no sacrifice of one for something else here. I hope that this line of thinking by you permeate the entire Chinese political leadership. It will make the political isolation of China much easier because the world will perceive China as an unreliable partner in any alliance.

Sure, the world according to the US and her few hardcore dependents. I wonder, deep down, how big that world is and how big it'll be in a decade or so from now considering her recent policies and actions are less than stellar. The days of using 9/11 and 'human rights' as excuses for intimidation and meddling are simply don't hold water anymore. The other smaller world (debatable) see the US as what she is: a belligerent hooligan who wants to rule the world according to her principles and that world refuses to buy it.

And what if, according to you, China sees her impending isolation (incidentally it happened multiple times since her formation)? Should she plays dead and let the western alliance, leads by the world only mighty super power, comes trembling into China once again?

I guess Bush's ideology: 'Either you with me or against me' still runs very high in certain segment of the American society.

 

[SinoChallenger]

USA is smart enough not to get its USN carriers sunk for Japan's benefit.

 

[gambit]

Sure, the world according to the US and her few hardcore dependents. I wonder, deep down, how big that world is and how big it'll be in a decade or so from now considering her recent policies and actions are less than stellar. The days of using 9/11 and 'human rights' as excuses for intimidation and meddling are simply don't hold water anymore. The other smaller world (debatable) see the US as what she is: a belligerent hooligan who wants to rule the world according to her principles and that world refuses to buy it.

And what if, according to you, China sees her impending isolation (incidentally it happened multiple times since her formation)? Should she plays dead and let the western alliance, leads by the world only mighty super power, comes trembling into China once again?

I guess Bush's ideology: 'Either you with me or against me' still runs very high in certain segment of the American society.

The smaller the world, the greater the importance of a stable and faithful alliance, especially when it is proven that just because one (unifying) threat is gone, another will not take its place and for the many small Asian countries, unfortunately for China, they either have perceived or in process of formulating a perception, that China, not US, is the new unifying threat. So you might want to reassess how 'unique' is Bush's perception of threat and peace.

 

[Abhishek_]

There's no doubt in my mind both parties, with the US urging, will solve this dispute peacefully and keep the present status-quo. There are simply too much to lose for everyone concerned if war does break out.

exactly, the issue here is how CPC needs to retreat while still saving face in front of its citizens. the status-quo as you pointed out, will remain.

 

[ahfatzia]

Hmm, beside being a judge, prosecutor and a cop is not enough, and now according to you, the US wants to play god as well. She's the only one who decides who's going to be the threat for human kind or to any Asian countries. Obviously you or your regime haven't take a poll as to how many Asian countries perceive the US or China is the bigger threat of the two.

Narcissism makes one lives in delusions and can't see further than one's nose. You don't need to look around, just check how many soldiers of yours have been killed and how many lives have you soldiers killed in the last two decades and compare that to the Chinese soldiers' ZERO. It doesn't take a genius to deduce who is the threat of world peace.

No matter how you spin it or what kind of intimidation you use and on top of talking loud people's minds are as clear as crystals. But then, of course, the thick-skinned Americans probably don't know the different.


@ Abhisek

No doubt China will retreat if Japan retreats, face saving is not the issue here. The ball is in Japan's hand and China will go to triple overtime or sudden death if that's what it take to keep the status-quo for the time being.

 

[terranMarine]

Why would China want to save face regarding the sovereignty of Diaoyu island?

Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister Chikao Kawai’s visit to Beijing comes after China postponed activities for the 40th anniversary of the normalization of China-Japan relations. Japan’s Kyoto news says the aim of the visit is to repair bilateral ties damaged by the Japanese government’s purchase of the islands.

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun began the talks with his Japanese counterpart in Beijing on Tuesday. This year marks 40 years of diplomatic relations between China and Japan.

However, China says a reception for the event, which was due to be held at the end of September, has been postponed. Japan’s foreign ministry said it wants to repair the frayed bilateral ties over Diaoyu Islands.

Chikao Kawai says, "For Japan, Sino-Japanese relations are extremely important. The strategic development of Japan-China relations is also very important for Japan.

 

[gambit]

Hmm, beside being a judge, prosecutor and a cop is not enough, and now according to you, the US wants to play god as well. She's the only one who decides who's going to be the threat for human kind or to any Asian countries. Obviously you or your regime haven't take a poll as to how many Asian countries perceive the US or China is the bigger threat of the two.

Narcissism makes one lives in delusions and can't see further than one's nose. You don't need to look around, just check how many soldiers of yours have been killed and how many lives have you soldiers killed in the last two decades and compare that to the Chinese soldiers' ZERO. It doesn't take a genius to deduce who is the threat of world peace.

No matter how you spin it or what kind of intimidation you use and on top of talking loud people's minds are as clear as crystals. But then, of course, the thick-skinned Americans probably don't know the different.


@ Abhisek

No doubt China will retreat if Japan retreats, face saving is not the issue here. The ball is in Japan's hand and China will go to triple overtime or sudden death if that's what it take to keep the status-quo for the time being.

That is funny considering how it has been the Chinese members here who believes it is China's RIGHT and DUTY to lead the Asiatics as the 'superior' race, to speak on Asia's behalf, and to ensure us 'inferior' Asians submit to China's divine right to rule. Not much different on how the Japanese felt only one generation ago.

 

[shuttler]

That is funny considering how it has been the Chinese members here who believes it is China's RIGHT and DUTY to lead the Asiatics as the 'superior' race, to speak on Asia's behalf, and to ensure us 'inferior' Asians submit to China's divine right to rule. Not much different on how the Japanese felt only one generation ago.

you dont even know the difference between administration and sovereignty is! looks like your adopted entity has not had any impact on your intelligence old man after all the years!