China says Abe’s logic for claiming disputed islands is ‘theft and illegal’

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Adam Westlake in Features, Politics with 46 Comments
China says Abe’s logic for claiming disputed islands is ‘theft and illegal’

China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a daily press conference that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s logic is ridiculous. This was in response to Abe’s speech, made while he was at Washington, to the effect that Japan’s ownership of the islands has basis both in history and in international law. He told the audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Friday, February 22, that no nation had questioned Japan’s control over the Senkakus between 1895 and 1971. To which, Hua shot back that no nation had questioned China’s sovereignty over them for almost 500 years between the 15th century and 1895.

“After the end of World War II, Japan did not fulfill its due international obligation as a defeated country in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation and did not return the Diaoyu Islands to China,” Hua said. She likened it to a person stealing something and keeping it. She said that whichever way one looks at it, the nature of that person’s ownership over the thing will always be illegal. Similarly, according to her, “all activities of Japan regarding the Diaoyu Islands are based on illegal theft and occupation and are therefore illegal and invalid.”

Nevertheless, Hua said China’s position on the progressive relations between Japan and China based on the “four political documents” has not changed. She continued by urging the Japanese government to show sincerity through substantial actions. Furthermore, in terms of Japan joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement, Hua said that China welcomes all cooperative proposals aimed at helping to promote economic cooperation and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.

[via Asia One]
POPULAR STORIES THIS WEEK:
Tags: , , , ,
Share Button
DISCUSS IT
Comment Policy : Our comments section is open and welcome to anyone who wishes to participate in discussion or share their point of view, regardless of what it may be. In order to limit spam and those who wish to impede meaningful conversation, we are now requiring users to log in with an account or verify their email address. However, the following behavior will result in your comment being deleted or, if continued, permanent removal from conversations: posting under multiple names, making hateful/racist comments, or making no valuable contribution by posting the same thing repeatedly.
  • Far East

    “China says Abe’s logic for claiming disputed islands is ‘theft and illegal’”

    I think this is China’s way to pay Abe a compliment. I can see no other meaning to this rubbish otherwise.

    It’s either that or they are collectively suffering from psychotic autism together with heavy memory loss for not even recognizing there has been the Treaty of San Francisco signed in 1951 by 50 nations making and recognizing what Japan is today, and even with Taiwan with the Treaty of Taipei signed in 1952. The Postdam Declaration of 1945, made at gun point was rather nothing more than what it says, ie a declaration, but China uses this only because it is convenient rather because it is incomplete and biased historical data.

    As for the history on the Senkaku, the Chinese are trying to refer to some historical documents that mention those islands as a marker in their route to the Ryukyu (Okinawa, part of Japan), but emissary from China at the time used that route only 23 times during 507 years while the Ryukyu people went to China using their route 580 times from 1372 to 1879…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnlr_OBN2uw

    And maybe they could have the honesty (I am an optimistic) to recognize their true motive, which is to seize the underground resources those Senkakus islands have. That’s right, a United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) (http://www.unescap.org) report stated there is a strong possibility for petroleum and natural gas to be under those islands. Foreign estimates of potential oil reserves on the shelf have gone as high as 100 billion barrels. (Saudi Arabia has “proven and probable” oil reserves of 261.7 billion barrels and the United States 22 billion).

    • -observer-

      I don’t agree with some of your points but i respect that you are not a troll :)

      • Far East

        Which points? Because everything I wrote (except my cynism at the beginning) is facts with references.

        • -observer-

          The Sino-Japanese Treaty, also known as Treaty of Taipei, was signed on April 25, 1952, by the ROC and Japan and took effect on Aug. 5 that year.

          Ma and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have said that under the treaty Japan agreed to return Taiwan, the Penghu Islands, as well as the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) and the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands, 西沙群島) to the ROC.

          The treaty also nullified all agreements with Japan concluded before the ROC declared war on Japan, including the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, under which Ma claims the Diaoyutais were ceded to Japan.

          Geographically the Islands are closer to Taiwan than that of the RyuKyu Islands. with only 70NM distance (Pengjai Islt) compared 96NM (Ishigaki Islands).

          Historically these islands can be claimed by either the Taiwanese natives or the Ming Dynasty.

          • Far East

            I agree on almost all you wrote, except on 3 points:

            1) The Treaty of San Francisco article 3 clearly states the Nansei Shoto that includes the Senkaku islands to be returned to Japan, because it was acquired by Japan BEFORE the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895

            2) It certainly was nowhere on the Ming nor the Qing map, simply because the Chinese emperor did not want to invest in what was then the region of Taiwan, and he started to show some interest in the late 19th century. it was after the Qing Dynasty establishment of the province of Taiwan that Taiwan became part of Chinese territory. In the Map of the Great Ming (Foreigners Section) compiled by the government in 1461 during the Ming Dynasty, the Penghutao (Pescadores) Islands, located between Fuchien Province and Taiwan, are a possession of the Ryukyus.
            And also that there is the Map of the Great Qing, geographical recognition that Jilongshan and Jilong Castle mark the northern boundary of Taiwan, and the Senkaku islands are nowhere on the map as a territory of Taiwan.
            3) Distance has nothing to do with it, legally speaking at least.

    • Bill

      Is China signed on the SanFranciso Treaty? If not, keep your mouth shut. Also you mentioned Japan signed on “Postdam Declaration of 1945, made at gun point ” must be a joke. Please do not make false statement.

      • Far East

        The fact that China was at civil war when the Treaty of San Francisco and thus not invited doesn’t not prevent the fact that this Treaty exists.
        All my statements are backed up by factual evidence that anyone can verify, unlike what you claim.

        • Bill

          How can you the treaty can apply to China without their agreeement as the islands belongs to China and this is why Japan is acting like a thief in this case and you are making false claim on this.

          • Far East

            I see why you are confused. The Treaty of San Francisco does not apply to China, but to Japan. It’s been that way since 1952. Live with it, because it just won’t change. The fact that China does not recognize it does not change the fact that the rest of the world do :-)

          • Bill

            Now you are lying again. The islands belongs to China and Japan claims SanFrancisco is good. You and Japan making false argument and it is not valid even go to court. Then Abe is making false statement.

          • Far East

            I respect that you disagree, and that’s China’s right, but whether you like it or not, those islands are owned and under effective control of Japan. It is not because Chinese government is having some of its ships sail in Japanese water that it means they have control. If they would land on those islands and build infrastructure, I’d have to agree they have control, but the day they do this, is the day they will have a fully mounted war against them as a legitimate defense. China is not doing any of this, because it knows fully well the consequences. All this is purely for domestic political gains.

          • Bill

            This is same thing apply to Japan right now. If Japan going to put any building there, it is going to declare war with China. You are wrong to say Japan own the islands. No one say this except Japan not even US. US only says Japan got administration so far. That is why Japan can not nothing with China vessels.

          • Far East

            Hmm, U.S. foreign policy clearly stated they do not make any decision as to who has sovereignty, but they also states they go against any unilateral move that will undermine Japan control over the islands :-)
            Japan has the perfect legitimacy to build infrastructure on those islands, and I think this is what they should do, just like the Koreans did with the Dokdo/Takeshima islands. Then Japan can defend itself and China will appear on the international scene as the aggressor without doubt.
            Strategically China loses. In time, China is losing on all counts, economically and politically as well.

          • Bill

            This is only your dream and it is also the dream of extreme right Japanese. However, it never happens. In time, what I see Japan will even get hurt in economy in losing China market.

          • Far East

            Of course you are not completely oblivious to the facts that Japan is the #1 investor in China, right?

            You know that it is estimated that roughly 10 million Chinese jobs depend on Japanese companies in China? Do you know that following the riots organized by the Chinese government against Japanese assets (not even Government) in September 2012, the Foreign Direct Investment in China fell 7.3% year on year (according to Xinhua)?

            I think China can play tough all it wants, the ugly truth is that it depends on foreign countries to sustain its economy and worse, it depends primarily on Japan for that!

          • Bill

            I noticed you will using the jobs figures to scare China which is used by Abe. Sorry. China will not buy this. Don’t forget China can create internal demand to create jobs but Japan can’t. In fact, Japan company will lose the huge market in China or it will replace by others.

          • Far East

            You are deceiving your self if you think China can create sustainable artificial demand like this. You need to face up to the law of economics.
            Japan is an extremely wealthy nation, not to mention very respected worldwide. It is a simple economic fact that China needs Japan’s investment whether you like it or not.

          • Bill

            You are misleading again. Japan get huge deficit and China got huge reserve. This is the fact.

          • Far East

            Yes, you’re right, but again, let’s put things in perspective, shall we?
            The trade deficit is technically true, but in real terms is non-existent if you remove from the balance all the products produced by Japanese firms based in China and returned to Japanese market… Do you see what I mean?
            For what you say to be true in real terms, you’d need to take the true Chinese brands or Chinese company made products sold to Japan.
            The reality is the trade deficit does not exists if you remove those China-based Japanese companies.

          • Bill

            Let talk with fact and not your view.

          • Far East

            Those are facts. China has very little brands renown outside China like Huawei. Today’s fact is that China is the manufacturing back-office of the world industrialized countries. So, pure Chinese companies export accounts in reality for very little. This is no secret.

          • Bill

            Please go to the kitchen and see most of the products are made from China and in Chinese brands.

          • Far East

            Products made by foreign companies in China? Certainly many. Products from domestic Chinese companies? Some, but in volume to the total trade balance? Not that much. So the true trade balance of domestic Chinese company is in reality not that high, and certainly in reality there is no trade deficit when you account for that, which is why foreign nations like Japan are not really worried.

          • Bill

            Go to Walmart and Dollar Shop. Mostly made in China. China brands – a lot.

          • Far East

            Like I just wrote, you confuse China-based foreign factories made products and Chinese domestic products. Check the Forbes article I just mentioned upper.

          • Bill

            You are confusing with your report. Compare the trade figures with China and Japan. Then you will see which one looks good in economic.

          • Far East

            China and Japan is same principle as in China and the U.S. Actually it is even worse for China since Japan is #1 investor and trading partner. Furthermore, there is a strong cultural factor in Japan for high quality product and service. Something hard to compete for Chinese domestic companies-made products.

          • Bill

            You are misleading again. In regarding the trading figures, you still did not answer who is better – China or Japan.

          • Far East

            Actually I did told you in one of my earlier posts upper. Removing from the trade balance products made by China based Japanese companies, there is no trade deficit. This means the balance is positive for Japan. And I should add that Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was very smart in devaluating the Yen to shift the flow of cash back to Japan from those China-based Japanese companies!

          • Bill

            You still did not answer my question. Who get better trade figures?

          • Far East

            See my post upper. I just replied to the same question you asked me.

          • Bill

            The bottom line is China trade figures is much better than Japan otherwise Japan no need to depreciate the yen. In fact, it won’t work as the import cost will be much higher.

          • Far East

            I think i you think a little bit, you will understand :-)

          • Bill

            Please write proper English for our understanding.

          • Far East

            LOL :-) Look who’s talking!

          • Bill

            Oh change the wording again!

          • Far East

            Not changing the wording, but rather added the letter “f” that was missing to the word “if”. Geez, huge typo…

          • Bill

            Be honest, it is more than one letter missing. Where are the symbol?

          • MadeIn

            China is just the workers. Alot of workers. Worker ants. These people can be replaced very easily but with some cost involved if China makes too much trouble. India, Mexico, and some other small countries offer alot of working people that can make products for the companies. China is replaceable if worst comes, even if you make the products, someone else can do it instead. If you say, “Made in China” is a china “brand”, then you will be laughed by every other country except china. That is not a brand, that is where the company owners chose to make the product.

          • Far East

            Yep, exactly.

  • Truth

    Although up until the 70s official Chinese maps showed the Senkaku Islands as Japanese, the government is currently mid-crackdown to remove 10,000s of maps and mapping sites which “make errors” such as labeling Taiwan a “country”, “wrongly drawing national boundaries” or omitting important islands including the (cough) Diaoyu Islands. Particularly online sources.

    Any other nation would call it Orwellian censorship and historical revision; in China it’s “business as usual” and unquestioned. They’ve even set up a ‘snitch hotline’ for the party faithful to snitch on historically accurate maps.

    The State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping also stipulates that foreign organizations intent on mapping (yes, that is you Google) must obtain approval from the central government and accept supervision from local governments to draw them their way.

    It’s hard to argue with 1.2 billion people, and all their co-opted oversea students and fifth columns, who are willing to accept such open indoctrination.

  • Tacoma

    As some of chinese said that China DID NOT sign on the SanFranciso Treaty. So, best to do, who win the next battle of sea, or total war, who get those rockes. What chinese waiting for?
    They can’t win anything by putting words on internet.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jamesobh James Ong

    Abe’s logic is ridiculous.

    Zheng Hailin, a Chinese scholar, went to Japan to study history and international law in the 1990s and bought a Japanese Map there. The map was published in 1876 by Japan’s Army Staff Bureau and doesn’t have the Diaoyu Islands on it. According to international law, a country’s official map has legal effect over its territorial claims, and Zheng’s map clearly denies all claims that the Diaoyu Islands are Japan’s territory(read article at http://www.ebeijing.gov.cn/BeijingInformation/BeijingNewsUpdate/t1238135.htm).

    According to Meiji era documents unearthed by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, in
    1885, Japan acknowledged China as the owner. It seems pretty clear from the documents that Japan effectively stole the islands as spoils of war in 1895 (http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=344242).

    With the 2013 Defense Authorisation Act, US and Japan had subtly declared war on China. Currently, both are busy forming an anti-China military alliance in Asia, coinciding with US’ declared pivot to Asia. But, is it possible for US and her allies to contain China? It is impossible.

    The most reliable source of future events is found in the Bible. What puzzles many bible scholars till today, is that US is never mentioned in bible prophecy as having a part in battles in the Tribulation, a period after WW3. In contrast, ‘Kings of the East’ with 200 million troops going into battle (which many bible scholars agreed that China is a member of it), Russia, Israel, Iran, Turkey and many other nations are mentioned or referenced, as having a part in battles during the Tribulation. One can only conclude that US is either destroyed or its military apparatus is crippled in WW3, to render it disabled to participate in any war in the Tribulation.

    • Tran-VN

      So with your logic, CN map published by CN in 1900 until 1947 were shown Hainam was the most southern of CN. Should CN stop all non sense claim of Paracels or Spratly? There was a time CN map also show Senkaku was JP. Which ones were right?

  • Whirled Peas

    CAIRO AND POTSDAM will not help China claim the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

    Because the PRC did not sign the 1951/1952 Treaty of SF, China has recently come up with the idea that the world historical clock should be turned back to a time advantageous to China. China now asserts it doesn’t recognize the Treaty of SF (signed by 48 nations) and that Japans should be subject instead to the terms of Cairo Communique (November 27, 1943) and the Potsdam Declaration issued July 1945. China is hoping that the terms of the Cairo and Potsdam will hold the key for them to take hold of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Now mind you, the Cairo and Potsdam were not official treaties, they were only statements of intent — precursors to the bindingTreaty of SF; and Japan has already honorably complied with the extensive demands of the Treaty of SF. Although China protests it was not present at the Treaty of SF, the Allies certainly made sure Japan renounced all territory it had taken from China (all the way back to the first Sino-Japanese war, which ended 1895 with the Treaty of Shimonoseki when Japan first acquired Formosa).

    The PRC actually denounced the Treaty of SF in the past as well (Aug 15, 1951 and September 18, 1951) on the basis it hadn’t been invited and insisted that Article 2F, in which Japan renounced the Paracel and Spratly islands in the South Pacific should have specified that the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands should be returned to China, not just be renounced. Also China claimed the Pratas islands (not mentioned in the Treaty) should go to China. Whatever the ultimate fate of those islands, Japan did its part and gave them up. Notice, Japan does not control any of these islands. Also notice, that in its protest the PRC said NOTHING AT ALL about the Diaoyu islands being theirs.

    DO THE CAIRO AND POTSDAM DECLARATIONS really offer China more than it got via the Treaty of San Francisco? I would say no, based on examination of actual sections of the Cairo and Potsdam declarations dealing with territory. In fact, we find that Japan actually fulfilled the terms of both as a result of fulfilling the Treaty of SF! But judge for yourselves.

    CAIRO COMMUNIQUE EXCERPT:
    “The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent.”

    My comments: All the above has been faithfully executed. The Allies made Japan renounce all territory listed above. With regard to China, Japan had to give back territories going back to the end of first Sino-Japanese War (1895). And NO there is no evidence that Japan took the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands by violence and greed when it annexed them earlier in 1895 (before the Treaty of Shimonoseki). Also there is no indication that the islands had been administered by Taiwan, so there is no reason for China to claim “we thought Diaoyu was returned with Taiwan to the ROC. Taiwan only recently has claimed Toucheng province administers Diaoyu, which is bizarre since it’s been under effective control of Japan or the US since 1895. As an aside, if we were to follow the words of the Cairo Communique literally, then Manchuria belongs to the ROC or maybe all of China belongs to the ROC, but that would be silly and going backward, right?

    POTSDAM DECLARATION EXCERPT.
    Here are relevant excerpts (points 7, 8) from the original text of the Potsdam Declaration. Point 8 refers to the Cairo Declaration so I won’t repeat the Cairo text.

    “ (7) Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan’s
    war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by
    the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives
    we are here setting forth.”

    “ (8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine. “

    My comments: Nowhere in the Potsdam text does it say that the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands will be “returned” to China or that they were spoils of war! And if one is thinking the S/D islands should not have gone back to the Japanese control because they were not minor, then that’s just silly. Remember, they are a bunch of uninhabited rocks! And if one thinks the Ryukyu Islands as a whole (officially annexed 1879) shouldn’t have gone back to Japan, then please recall the intention of the Potsdam was not to make Japan renounce territory it had ever acquired. That opens up a huge can of worms for all countries (including China) since countries do not spring from the head of Zeus fully formed — territory is slowly acquired by hook, crook, violence and cunning. No exceptions. Nor was it the intention of the Potsdam to carve up Japan’s territory among the Allies. So certainly China shouldn’t imagine it or anyone else should have gotten a piece of established Japanese real estate. Remember the part of the Cairo that said: [The Allies] “covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion.”

    In short, IMO the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations will unfortunately not help China claim sovereignty over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands.

  • chinditone

    The Diaoyou have been historically Chinese since the 1300′s – its all here. The Japanese colluded with the US to ignore the Potsdam Declsaration and Cairo convention – and to try and steal the islands. Its all here read: http://wiki.china.org.cn/wiki/index.php/Diaoyu_Island

    The US originally used teh Diaoyou/Rykuku as part of its Cold War efforts against China/Russia – see Rykuku in former Cold War polities here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_polities_of_the_Cold_War

    What is really amusing is that the US tries to pretend that its an honest neutral broker over the Diaoyou’s – when in fact it was Richard Nixon who in fact stole the islands and handed them to Japan in exchange for Japan reducing its cotton exports to the US in 1972. Its all here. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/U.S.+considered+withholding+return+of+Senkaku+Islands+to+Japan.-a0109021656

    One wonders why the US pledges to military back Japan over the Diaoyou’s – when the Diaoyou’s do not belong to the US – and should have not have been returned to Jpan to administer. Bascially in a court of law – the US is an accessory or in fact a partner with Japan in the crime of the Diaoyou theft. It amazes me that the world is so stupid or blind that it can’t see this – and allows the US to get away with it – and thus Japan!!