The issue here is not about perception of military strength and power, but on the issue of ownership. There is a significant dichotomy between these two issues, and thus I will emphasize our position on ownership.Japan , as you may already known through our history, was never afraid of engaging great powers. The 1st and 2nd Sino Japanese Wars, The Russo-Japanese War, the German-Japanese War (WWI), and the Great Pacific War is testament of our lack of fear towards great rivals/ adversaries.
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.
You can't convince one Chinese and I doubt I can convince you, which is specifically why I said regardless of ownership.
The Senkakus have been administered by Japan since 1885, we had lost administrative control when we allowed the United States to administer it , as per the Peace Treaty. When the united States relinquished control of the Senkakus to Japan again in 1972, this was merely reinstating our continuity. Our side feels no need to tell our Chinese partners of our intent to nationalize the Senkakus because it has, it is and it shall always be part of Japan.
Exactly what I said you feel, no need to tell China. I'm not debating ownership at this point, doesn't really matter, I have my views you have yours.
If this was the US would you also feel no need to tell them? Or any nation you respected.
Even if it is Japan's for argument sake, you know the Chinese position since 1972, you don't need to ask for permission, but is letting China prepare for possible domestic opposition and a comprehensive strategy to deal with this issue without escalation really that bad.
Japan didn't think China was strong enough anyways to challenge.
You don't like to admit Japan made a mistake here, if nothing else, you tied the Chinese leadership's hands, they must respond. The CCP must protect the interests of the nation, it is their fundamental duty, fail that and all hell break lose.
Personally I feel CCP made a mistake in SCS, we should have let Indonesia prepare for some fallout, I mean no need to draw a map on a passport without informing them first. True I or China don't think they can ever challenge us, but it opens the door for some unpleasantness later.
Especially true for India.
I have been telling you what I mean at all times, straight to point and with decorum, if you noticed.
No you didn't I went back to your posts and posted it here, tell me one specific example that isn't subjective like positive change, what's positive.
We are developing the country in a break neck speed, I mean you didn't notice? As to relations with neighbors, Korea likes us, ASEAN other than 2 is good with us, rails have been developing in Thailand, Myanmar, and more.
The only thing you might have said is stick to Status quo, but I will get to that.
What do I mean by this? China has to prove to the world, she has a responsibility to the world and the region that she will be a force for positive change , for stability. She has to show to regional partners that she is able to reason with, and cares not just for her immediate interests, but to the interest(s) of her partners.
Source:
Nuclear weapons development must be consistent
There are definitely many areas that nations can develop and improve upon. Civil development comes with economic vitality and improvement of the human development index. As a Japanese, who tries to be objective at least, do believe that China will realize this and so will all citizens of China -- when China' realizes its GDP per capita even double to what it is now.
China as a potential global power has responsibilities not only to itself, but to the world. It will be inevitable. China needs to acutely and robustly develop its relationships with regional partners and vouchsafing this development is not itinerant on nuclear arsenal buildup.
Source:
Nuclear weapons development must be consistent | Page 2
That my friend, will be discussed when Abe and Xi hold the APEC summit in November. Best wishes for Japan and China.
Kanbatte Kudasai!
Source:
Nuclear weapons development must be consistent | Page 2
Responsibly,
I will not pretend to know the desires of my nation's government, nor do I pretend to know the desires of your nation's government in these future talks. Let us leave some optimism and faith in their abilities to ambulate necessary policies to re-engage each other. After-all, we know , already, the current situation on the ground.
Source:
Nuclear weapons development must be consistent | Page 3
We have to ameliorate our differences. And by this, I believe both of us need to abide our 1978 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. Remember, that Japan abrogated our 1972 Joint Communique with Taipei to
engage Beijing. In regards to our varying claims in the East Sea, we should let later generations deal with this issue.
Source:
Nuclear weapons development must be consistent | Page 3
Is this a threat, my dear and beautiful friend ? Because as you well know, in discourse, there is no need of such drivel.
It's a fact. Why would it be a threat? What does status quo mean? Existing state of affairs, that's broken when our military became what it is and economy became twice Japan's in even nominal terms. It's going to get way more unbalanced as we go on.
Status quo no longer exists even without us doing anything.
Indubitably. We look forward to this real compromise.
I Respectfully Remain,
Yours,
@
Nihonjin1051
This sentence just makes my point, while you keep implying China won't make compromises, but the fact of the matter is neither has Japan. Name one instance where Japan wanted to do something but didn't.
The nature of compromise is you do something that you otherwise wouldn't have done, we can both contribute, but the key word is BOTH.
For example China maybe willing to accept the current Island ownerships, if Japan remove any ADIZ, and allow Chinese ships including war ships passage through a specific area, around that area, that Japan chooses to go past Japan more easily.
Obviously we will also remove any ADIZ on our part.
The key isn't to make Japan bend, but at current, our military exercises are distracting domestic flights. If We can come to even this agreement, China will have enough space to maneuver, and break the first island chain, without damaging Japanese interests in anyway.
This is our only problem that is hard to solve anyways. The others, as long as you don't throw things like Shrine visits in our faces by constantly televising it, or let Western dudes write 800 articles, we don't care. Visit away.
We can also agree to purchase a few dozen billion dollars worth of military equipment and work together on new generation of warships and more.