Views: 14363|Replies: 47

Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Says "Diaoyu Sovereignty Is Not a Question   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-10-22 11:20:02 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abramicus at 2012-10-22 12:05

...however, it is a fact that China is disputing Diaoyu."

冈田还声称,“日本虽然与中国不存在领土问题,但有争议也是事实,双方必须通过对话解平息当前的事态”。

How can anyone begin to negotiate starting off with such a premise?  What is a matter of dispute is not a problem?  Your dispute is not my problem?  Japan should first stop contradicting itself.  You cannot arrive at any logical conclusion if you accept a contradiction as a premise.  However, this is not the fault of Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Okada.  It is the problem of Noda and his rightwing clique who want to both have the cake and eat it.  They are unwilling to let go of Diaoyu even if they have no right to it.  And so, all Okada can say is what he said, that Japan's sovereignty is not a problem, as his premise.  But if so, then China's dispute is the problem, or China is the problem, not Japan?  It is Japan's stealing and occupying of Diaoyu that is the problem.  In fact, China should refuse to talk with Japan until Japan withdraws its stragglers from China's Diaoyudao.

Only traitors and fools would accept Japaneses sovereignty over Diaoyu a premise for official negotiations.  

It is to China's benefit to first land some people on Diaoyu to break the fact that it has not had any official presence on the island, should the talks drag on and on, and Japan's claim of exercise of jurisdiction eventually trumps China's claim of historic sovereignty.  In fact, this should be done if at all possible.  It does not have to be violent, even though it might have to be forceful, in such a way that the Japanese would not dare to attack the landing party at all.  

One way to do this diplomatically is to offer to meet Japanese diplomats ON Diaoyudao as their first meeting to kickstart the negotiations, by "mutual invitation".   Having said this, China should send a high ranking official, such as FM Yang, immediately, to land on Diaoyudao, regardless of whether Japan says yes or no.   Japan will have to say Yes, or it will have to evict Yang, which equate to going to war with China.  Yang does not need a visa to land on China's own island.  Besides, he has diplomatic immunity.  Other mechanisms of course are also possible.





Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-10-22 11:25:39 |Display all floors
If China were America, it would have first landed on Diaoyu and then ask the Japanese, "Well, what is the problem?'"

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-10-22 13:10:10 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abramicus at 2012-10-22 13:15

冈田还声称,“日本虽然与中国不存在领土问题,但有争议也是事实,双方必须通过对话解平息当前的事态”。

This statement needs further analysis.

Okada also said, "Although Japan and China do not have any existing sovereign territorial problems, but their having a dispute is also an existing reality.  Both sides should use bilateral talks to defuse the current situation."

Does Japan want China to also say that its sovereignty over Diaoyudao is not a problem, just as Japan has been saying, and therefore, return to the Deng era detente where both sides say their own thing about their sovereignty?

On the other hand, since Japan has already "nationalized" Diaoyudao by an act of the Cabinet, China has no choice but to dispute Japan's claim of sovereignty?  And therefore, Okada criticized Ishihara as the cause of the "nationalization" claiming that since Ishihara is acting as a local governor of Tokyo, and has no responsiblity for Japan's foreign affairs, he would be unqualified to "buy" Diaoyu, which has important diplomatic repercussions for Sino-Japanese ties.  But this does not reduce the even worse impact of Noda's government officially "nationalizing" Diaoyudao in the face of strong and persistent protests by the Chinese government.  Thus, the responsibility for the dispute cannot reside solely in Ishihara, but must be attributed to the Noda government as well.

If a port or lighthouse were established by Ishihara, it would have been a local event, even though it would have provoked China's intervention nevertheless.  If Diaoyu were "nationalized" by Noda, it would have been a national and international event, and it would even more surely provoke China's intervention, which we have all witnessed, included daily marine surveillance patrols around Diaoyudao.

Thus, to address the "recognized dispute with China" over the sovereignty of Diaoyudao, a return to the status quo ante is necessary, and what is the status quo ante needs to be defined, and the means to its attainment determined.

The status quo ante is obviously the status quo before Japan's 9/11 "nationalization" of Diaoyudao.  Before that, the Japanese Coast Guard had avoided showing up on the island except to remove any civilian from either Japan or China found on the island.  Even this was a concession by China, because police action by Japan on Chinese sovereign soil is inconsistent with China's claim of sovereignty.  Will China agree to this inconsistency, now that Japan has opened the question, and attempted to use it as a pretext to conclude that since Japan has exercised continuous jurisdiction (police power) over Diaoyudao, China has no real sovereignty over the island?  Or, should China have the right to close this inconsistency because Japan tried to take advantage of it, and have it now in writing that Japan has neither the jurisdiction nor the sovereignty over Diaoyudao?  If so, China has to have a presence on Diaoyudao, which is the definition of effiective jurisdiction, and cannot merely have a paper claim to its sovereignty.

How to resolve this question of physical presence of Chinese officials on Diaoyudao is hard to figure out, without a physical fight with the Japanese policemen or coast guard on the island.  

One solution is that of bilateral simultaneous presence of their Foreign Ministers on the island to hold talks every once a year, and to have no other offiicials on either side landing on the island, plus each side banning their own civilians from landing on the island which they are responsible for removing in less than 12 hours.

Another solution is that of each side taking turns in being stationed on the island every six months, but with the waters around them open to fishing by citizens of both countries, including Taiwan, without restrictions except on a mutually agreed period of rest for the marine life to reproduce each year.

None of these will be palatable to Japan, least of all its rightwing elements, but the consequence of their action is an irreversible change in the equilibrium that can exist between China and Japan.  This is a fact of life.  Their insistence on "nationalization" of Diaoyudao over and against the objections of the Chinese government has irreversibly changed the question of sovereignty over Diaoyudao.  There is no way back to the same equilibrium, even though there is a way back to a different equilibrium, as outlined above.  This time, the equilibrium is more physical, more political, and more militaristic, in nature.  At the same time, its maintenance forces both countries to be even more cordial and more patient with each other.  This is all that can be achieved.

It is not, however, the optimal solution for China, to whom Diaoyudao actually belongs by historical right, and by international treaty, chief which is the Instrument of Surrender of the Japanese Empire, signed by Japan, on September 2, 1945.

China has no reason to allow Diaoyudao to remain partly or even temporarily under the illegal occupation of Japan for any period of time.  This alone is an insult and injury to its sovereignty, like no country in the world has ever to endure.  Therefore, while a new equilibrium in favor of peace is possible, a real solution to China's sovereignty being invaded by Japan does not, short of Japanese surrender peacefully, or China's victory militarily.  This "real" solution will forever dog the peace of both countries, even if an new entente is acheived by both sides to defer the issue to another time.  It may be best for China to just occupy Diaoyudao, come hell or high water, because that is its sovereign right, and be done with this pestering question that deserves no further debate if only the international community were fair and faithful to its own treaties and norms of conduct.







Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2012-10-22 18:00:35 |Display all floors
The islands are currently Japanese territory (and have been Japanese territory for ~115 years, with a small pause when they were given to the U.S.), that's why Japanese coast guard boats send people who trespass in those waters back home.

Sure, China may challenge Japanese sovereignity of those islands, but the current legal status according to the international community is that Japan has them.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-10-23 05:15:41 |Display all floors

Premier Wen says: "... China will make absolutely no concession on territory..." .


What is there to negotiate according to Premier Wen's statement?


In fact, China should refuse to talk with Japan until Japan withdraws its stragglers from China's Diaoyudao.

Only traitors and fools would accept Japaneses sovereignty over Diaoyu a premise for official negotiations.

Does not make sense to me unless your statement holds water.
FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-10-23 05:54:50 |Display all floors
This post was edited by sansukong at 2012-10-23 04:56

The nationalisation of Diaoyu by Japan construes to naked violations of China's sovereignty and  should be taken as an act of war against China!  China should reciprocate with the appropriate countermeasures to Japan's actions ........ as

It may be best for China to just occupy Diaoyudao, come hell or high water, because that is its sovereign right, and be done with this pestering question that deserves no further debate if only the international community were fair and faithful to its own treaties and norms of conduct.

FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-10-23 11:21:24 |Display all floors
This post was edited by abramicus at 2012-10-23 12:03

EMBARRASSING "MISTRANSLATION" OF DEPUTY PM OKUDA'S STATEMENT, SAYS CHINESE MEDIA, WHICH GOT THEIR NEWS FROM JAPANESE MEDIA.  

ANOTHER OF THE MIND GAMES OF THE NODA GOVERNMENT?  

JAPAN FOREIGN MINISTRY DENIES OKUDA ADMITTED THAT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF DIAOYU IS IN QUESTION OR IN DISPUTE AT ALL, EVEN IF THERE IS DISPUTE BY CHINA, I.E. CHINA IS THE PROBLEM, NOT JAPANESE SOVEREIGNTY!!!

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.