Japan calls for stronger security ties with ASEAN amid Chinese agressions

Posted on March 13, 2013 by Cherrie Lou Billones in Features, Politics with 42 Comments
Japan calls for stronger security ties with ASEAN amid Chinese agressions

On the first day of the 2-day gathering in Tokyo of vice-minister level representatives of members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), vice Defence Minister Akinori Eto spoke during the opening session of the closed-door meeting and pointed the issues that faced the members in terms of security and defense. “The Asia-Pacific region has various issues concerning security and defense… including territorial conflicts in the South China Sea,” he said. “On top of the growing maturity of our economic cooperation, Japan and ASEAN need to further strengthen ties in the field of security and defense.”

It is no secret that China has been very aggressive recently as it claims most of the territory in the East and South China Seas, even those that are clearly closer to the shores of its neighbors. The Japan-controlled Senkakus/Diaoyus have been a source of growing tension between the two countries. Only this Tuesday it was reported that three Chinese government vessels entered the 12-nautical-mile territorial zone off one of the Senkaku islands and spent a couple of hours there. Last year, China and the Philippines were engaged in a stand-off over the Scarborough Shoal when patrol vessels from both sides met each other on the seas in April.

Eto pointed out that Japan’s new government is very keen in enforcing cooperation with ASEAN countries in terms of security and defense, in order to keep peace in the region. Remember that Japan also sought stronger cooperation with the United States. The gathering is the first high-ranking defense dialogue of its kind since Prime Minister Shinzo Abe returned to office in late December.

Previous Coverage

[via Channel News Asia]
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.
  • A.C.

    That’s probably one of the ideas behind these actions: If it works with Japan, the second strongest nation in East Asia, there will be no problem with the other South East Asian states …

  • Paul.N

    What it shows is Japan trying to going back exterme right wing direction: increase military spending, changing the constitution and rewrite Japan’s wartime history. It is like a return of imperial Japan army come back. Be alert and careful to deal with Abe.

    • Truth

      The Japanese people were never “exterme right wing” as your poisoned little mind is trying to portray it.

      You must be a child. Stop your nastiness.

      • PaulN

        Did you ever know imperial Japan army in WWII? Study their deeds then you will learn what extreme right wing means. Don’t be childish and a fool.

        • ozzy

          Isaac Asimov said ” the assignment of blame is man’s most futile pastime” Your brand of thinking is the cause for the Hutus fighting the Zulus. same thing for Catholics and Protestants. Bosnisa and Serbia etc

          • PaulN

            Do you know why they fight in you quote? If not, please do not make such comment.

          • ozzy

            They fight because of some long lost beef they had and they got your attitude!! the Hutus and the Zulus and the Bosnians and Serbs were separated then started right back up first chance they got i know what i’m talking about.Dont you tell me what to do assho&le and fuCkin troll

          • PaulN

            You are right to take this to imperial JP army and apply to you too.

          • ozzy

            thats right

        • Guest

          When a guy could not find any better reason to prove his point, the history would be handy and good excuse….

          • ozzy

            Good excuse for what? I proved my point . Chinas the one that keeps bringing up Japans historyto sway world opinion, but it’s backfired What happens if China has a dispute with Peru are they going bring up Peru’s history? We in the real world are sick of being told by China what Japan did 70 years ago, while at the same time they are doing worse things in Tibet right now

          • PaulN

            Abe is often heard speaking about redrafting the constitution and rewriting Japan’s wartime history, many Japanese businessmen are wary that Abe might shift focus to his security and historical revisionist agenda. This is the current suitation that Japan is heading to wrong direction. Creating more conflict with the neightbours.

          • Truth

            Redrafting the constitution is a good thing. Japan has earned the right to self-determination by its pacifism, charity, adherence to international law, and a high level of behavior over the last 70 years.

            Actually, this period of peace is not unusual. It is a return to Japan’s true nature.

            Why should it accept the slave shackles America placed on it, in order to establish its own divisive and hegemonic rule of Asia, forever?

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

    US knew full well that Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands belong to China, but as China was won over by the Communists in 1949, it did the unthinkable, interfering in the affairs of China. It transferred administrative control of the islands to Japan, via the San Francisco Treaty in the 1970′s, intentionally infringing upon the territorial sovereignty of China and so, created a flashpoint in East China Sea.

    Diaoyu Islands then becomes a powder keg which can blow up into a war between China and Japan and with US’ interference, even lead to WW3.

    The many statements coming out of US and Japan, just goes to show that US and Japan are not bothered about Potsdam Proclaimation and Cairo Declaration, as a post-war international order, to effect the return of Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands to China. US and Japan are only concerned with containing China within the first island chain, as long as they have control of them. This is in effect, a subtle declaration of war on China.

    And the warnings by US to China to stay out of Diaoyu Islands is a challenge to China’s dignity and territorial sovereignty, and in fact, both US and Japan had thrown a gauntlet down, to see if China is daring enough to take up the fight over the islands.

    Though the world had gone through two world wars, US and Japan are still eager to provoke China to a war. Abe has in mind to bring to fruition, a “democratic diamond security,” which is basically an anti-China military alliance. His warmongering attitude is further strengthened with his attempts to influence and lure ASEAN nations to his side in the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands’ dispute with China.

    China has made representations in the UN over Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, circulated a White Paper, and provided evidence that Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands are on its continental shelf. The representations and evidences have proven beyond doubt that China is the owner of Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands.

    • Truth

      The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the only place to go to resolve the issue.

      Why is China afraid to do so?
      Why does China refuse to accept the authority of the ICJ and International Law?

      We’ve patiently answered all these points many, many times already and point out where you are confused and attempting to confusing others.

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

        It was agreed by both China and Japan in 1978, that the dispute over the islands is to be shelved for future generations to settle, so that they can normalise relations and proceed to focus on economic growth. But, Japan did the unthinkable by nationalizing the islands and went on to claim that there is no dispute over the islands. So, if you have Japan as a liar and traitor, can China and Japan, ever come to another agreement, that is to bring the matter to ICJ? So, the only resolution is time and a war. The war is yet to come.

        • Whirled Peas

          I am aware that Deng Xiaoping said something about shelving the issue, but I am not to sure there was a formal agreement between Japan and China to do so. Nevertheless the status quo was maintained for all intents and purposes for many years. It was actually China that took the issue off the shelf. In February 25, 1992 China created a new document on the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. And in Article 2 it laid claim to the Senkakus in writing.

          - Excerpt from Article 2 ” The land territory of the People’s Republic of China includes the mainland of the People’s Republic of China and its coastal islands; TAIWAN and all islands appertaining thereto including the DIAOYU Islands; the Penghu Islands; the Dongsha Islands; the Xisha Islands [Paracels]; the Zhongsha Islands and the Nansha Islands [Spratley]; as well as all the other islands belonging to the People’s Republic of China.”

          Then ca. mid 2000;s China started to step up incursions into Japan controlled waters around the Senkakus, and when Japan tried to shoo boats away, China complained like it was the victim. That was nonsense. So don’t put the onus on Japan for taking the issue off the shelf. It was already off the shelf long time ago. China’s provocations unleashed the more extremist forces like Ishihara who had collected enough money to buy the islands and build on it. Then the Japanese government was forced to buy the islands to rein in Ishihara!

        • Truth

          An “agreement” between two countries has to be in a certain form for it to be legal, e.g. a treaty.

          You refer to then Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping visit to Japan in 1978 in which he made a one side statement, “Any issue that our generation does not have the wisdom to resolve should be handled by future generations”.

          That is not an “agreement”. It was merely his opinion.

          Funnily enough, we have had other Pro-Community Party of China trolls here bring up the same argument so it might be on the list of items for them to copy and paste. It’s not true though.

          The purchase of the lease back from the family which owned them did not constitute “nationalizing”. The island were already Japanese sovereign territory, they were merely ‘leased’ out to a family.

          In the international sphere, the CPC does not get to ‘tell’ other people what to do like it does internally. It has to follow the law.

          The only honest and accurate statement you made is that China is likely to attempt aggression before going to the International Court of Law to resolve the dispute.

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

            If there was no ambiquity as to the sovereignty of the islands, would there be a need for the then leaders of the two countries, Japan’s PM Tanaka Kakue and China’s Premier Zhou Enlai, to discuss the issue? There was indeed a dispute, as recognised by Japan, even then. In addition, former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger affirmed that China and Japan had decided to temporarily lay aside the issue of Diaoyu Islands sovereignty, at the time of signing the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People’s Republic of China in 1978.

          • Truth

            Kissinger affirmed no such thing. There was no discussion because legal sovereignty clearly remains with Japan and China refuse to accept and acknowledge International Law and take the issue to the International Court of Justice.

            China and Japan made no such agreement. If the two nations made such an agreement, show us it in writing.

            You cannot because it does not exist. Pure propaganda yet again.

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

            Even Yuri Hatoyama, Japan’s former Prime Minister admitted that there exist a dispute over the islands. “If we look at the historical facts, there is indeed a disagreement,” admitted Hatoyama: “Both parties must find a solution and we must admit that there are conflicting points of views. We will never find a solution if we stay in complete denial.”

    • Whirled Peas

      The understanding by the US, Britain and ROC (Chiang-kai Shek) at the end of WWII was that the Senkakus were part Japanese territory. That’s why they were occupied along with Japan’s four larger islands and Okinawa chain. The occupation was designed to occupy JAPANESE land, not Chinese land. ALL Chinese land was renounced by Japan in accordance with Potsdam Terms of Surrender.

      Although PRC and ROC did not attend the signing of the SF Peace Treaty of 1952, all China’s land acquired back to Treaty of Shimonoseki had been renounced by Japan. PRC protested in 1951 that it wasn’t invited and took that opportunity to say that the Treaty should give the Paracels, Spratley, and Pratas (which had Japan renounced) to the PRC. PRC made no mention of Senkakus.

      Why should PRC or even ROC have been at the Okinawa Reversion (discussed 1969, signed 1971, in effect 1972). US was the designated occupational force and the Treaty was between US and Japan. It was not within the power of Pres Nixon or Kissinger or the US Congress to decide on the last minute request by Diaoyu activists (May 1971) to not return the Senkakus to Japan. That is something that must be decided in the International Court of Justice. As it was, Nixon and Congress made a concession by saying US is neutral on ownership and gave only “administrative control.” But don’t misunderstand, admin control means Japan has control and protect against trespasser, as US will via the US-Japan Treaty. It is not Japan or even the US that is causing friction. It is China’s trespass into Senkaku waters that heightens tensions. Truth is right. China needs to take the claim to the ICJ.

      • Whirled Peas

        First sentence should read: The understanding of the US, Britain and ROC (Chiang-kai Shek) at the
        end of WWII was that the Senkakus were part [OF ]Japanese territory.

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

        US is not authorised to take any territory of China and do as it pleases. As soon as China was won over by the Communists in 1949, US did the unthinkable, by interfering in the affairs of China. US transfered administrative control of the islands to Japan in the 1970′s but it does not recognise Japan’s sovereignty over the islands, because US knew that the islands belong to China. US’ purpose is to restrict Chinese navy vessels (including submarines) heading to the Pacific and to safeguard U.S. strategic assets all the way to the American military facility in Guam.
        Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands then becomes a powder keg which can blow up into a war between China and Japan and with US interference, even lead to WW3.

        • Whirled Peas

          True, the US was not authorized to take China’s territory and it DID NOT DO SO. Senkakus were not China’s territory, so it was not renounced at the end of WWII. . Instead it was occupied by the US along with other Japanese territory. It was returned to Japan in 1972. Simple as that.

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

            It is very clear from Kiyoshi Inoue, a notable Japanese historian, who recorded in his book “History and Sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands,” that Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands belong to China. And according to Meiji era documents unearthed by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, in 1885, Japan acknowledged China as the owner of Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. It seems pretty clear from the documents that Japan effectively stole the islands as spoils of war in 1895.

          • Truth

            Kiyoshi Inoue was not a “notable” historian, he was an such an extreme left wing, Pro-China and supporter of the Cultural Revolution in China which killed 30 million people (according to the current Chinese government) that in 1967 he was even expelled from the Japanese Communist Party. He was a China-loving, Japan-hating Maoist.

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

            It is very clear from Kiyoshi Inoue, a notable Japanese historian, who recorded in his book “History and Sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands,” that Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands belong to China. And according to Meiji era documents unearthed by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, in 1885, Japan acknowledged China as the owner of Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. It seems pretty clear from the documents that Japan effectively stole the islands as spoils of war in 1895.

          • Truth

            Japan, a “Liar, traitor, thief …” to be punished by war? Nice rhetoric, Mr Ong.

            Kiyoshi Inoue was not a “notable” historian, he was an such an extreme left wing, Pro-China and supporter of the Cultural Revolution in China which killed 30 million people (according to the current Chinese government) that in 1967 he was even expelled from the Japanese Communist Party. He was a China-loving, Japan-hating Maoist.

            He is also dead, so he won’t make a very good witness at court. Notable? It’s not true. He was a well known Marxist, communist and China sympathizer. His is views were and are fairly irrelevant.

            Japan is a free society. People are free to say and write whatever they want, a concept alien to China. It does not make them true however.

          • Whirled Peas

            I have only read summaries of Dr. Kiyoshi Inoue’s book “History and Sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands.” But the gist is that Dr. Inoue first got his notion that the Senkakus belonged to China when he personally visited Okinawa in 1971. He did some research there and could not find any documentary evidence in the archives that the Senkakus had belonged to
            the Ryukyu Kingdom since ancient times. He also simply asked local Okinawans if they could recall the islands being part of Ryukyu prior to 1895. They could not. So then Mr. Inoue concluded the Senkakus were taken from China as a result of the Qing Dynasty war in 1894-1895 and so should be returned to China as per the Potsdam Declaration. Somewhere in there he mentions that Japan did not rename the islands Senkaku until 1900 as further proof of China’s ownership. He further concluded that to not to return the islands to China was a revival of Japanese imperialism (!)

            The problems I have with Dr. Inoue’s thesis are:

            1. Japan’s claim is not based at all upon the Senkakus having been part of the former Ryukyu Kingdom. It clearly was not. Japan annexed the islands in 1895 after surveying and stalling for ten years from the time Mr. Koga first asked to start a business on the islands. Japan then ssigned jurisdiction of the islands to its Okinawa Prefectural government. The fact Dr. Inoue could not find any documentary or man-on-the-street evidence of attachment of Senkakus to old Ryukyu is irrelevant.

            2. Dr. Inoue’s conclusion that the Senkakus were annexed as a spoil of war after the first Sino-Japanese War is not grounded in fact but on conjecture, and it just parrots the vociferous claims by the then newly-formed Tiaoyutai and Diaoyu activist movement in their full page ad in New York Times May 1971. The annexation of the Senkakus in January 1895 was a separate process from the S-J War and the Treaty of Shimonoseki. The processes took place close in time for sure, but one did not cause the other. And if the island annexation was not part of the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki (which was nullified by the Allies), then there is no basis for so-called “return” of the islands.

            3. Further, why was Inoue so hasty to make accusations that to not “return” the islands to China was a sign of Japanese imperialism? That’s absurd. Inoue should have remembered Japan did not have a say in what to renounce after WWII. Japan had to renounce ALL territory acquired from China since the Treaty of Shimonoseki; plus Korea, and other Asian holdings, etc. Japan faithfully complied with all the Potsdam Terms of Surrender. Senkaku was not renounced because it had not been acquired as a result of recent war with China. Chiang Kai-Shek was part of that process as rep of ROC. And it was the US that occupied the Senkakus as part of remaining Japanese territory with plan to return Okinawa in 1972, How does this in any way relate to Japanese imperialism?? I have no problem with Inoue being an anti-imperialist, but as an academic he should not bandy about the term imperialism where it clearly doesn’t fit the situation!

            4. The Chinese term Diaoyu was known to the Japanese as was the English term Pinnacle Islands (named as such ca 1790). The fact these names existed prior to Japan’s annexation in 1895 does not mean the Chinese or English had owned the islands. I’m sure the old Ryukyuans also had their own special name for the islands as well, though they were not a part of their Kingdom, but rather a no-man’s land.. The fact (?) Japan did not name the islands Senkaku (pinnacled pavilions) until 1900 is totally irrelevant.

          • chinditone2

            Actually, the US illegally gave the Senkaku’s to Jpan to adminster during the Sn Franscisco treaty in exchange for the use of the Okinawa base during the Korean War. http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1205033/japan-must-give-back-islands Also, Richard Nixon illegally handed the islands over to Jpan in 1972 – in exchange for the Japan reducing cotton exports to the US.http://www.thefreelibrary.com/U.S.+considered+withholding+return+of+Senkaku+Islands+to+Japan.-a0109021656

          • Whirled Peas

            Of course Nixon was highly aware that China and Taiwan were claiming the islands (for the first time) in 1971, after oil was found. How could Nixon and Congress not know this. The Tiaoyutai/Diaoyu activists had taken out a full page add in the New York Times in May 1971 asking Nixon not to return the Senkakus to Japan.. Also Chiang Kai-Shek had contacted someone in Washington in 1971, to make their highly belated claim. The US was NOT aware of any claims prior to this because they were not made until 75 years after Japan claimed the Senkakus in 1895. IMO, what Nixon and Congress should have done is return the islands to Japan and adviseTaiwan and China to file an application with the ICJ , because it was not up to the executive or legislative branch to make decisions on territorial claims. Instead (not to their credit) Nixon/Congress tried to use the threat of not returning the islands to “persuade” Japan to make concessions to Taiwan over some cotton issue. In the end the US decided to return the islands to Japan and give Japan full “administrative control.”

          • Whirled Peas

            correction — *concessions to the US (not Taiwan) over cotton exports.

        • Truth

          Legally, the Senkakus are not Chinese territory, get that into your head. They were legally acquired unoccupied territories which are now Japanese and always were Japanese since 1895 when the surveying and publication of accession was complete. They have been administered and occupied by Japan since then.

          If China disputes that, all it has to do is take the case to the International Court of Justice. Why won’t China recognize and accept International Law and the International Court of Justice?

          If China is so sure of its case, then surely it will win, so why be afraid of it and threaten war instead?

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

            In which part of the study of Kiyoshi Inoue, who concluded that Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands belong to China, that you don’t accept? With the two WW2 treaties, there isn’t a need for the San Francisco Treaty. The treaty is simply a backroom deal between US and Japan, put forward as a challenge to Communist China. You must accept the fact that history is not to be reversed. Japan was nuked by US, ravaged by Russia, and lost WW2. And being the loser, Japan surrendered and to end the war formally, Japan is a party to the two WW2 treaties, and the Unconditional Surrender Treaty. And, there was no gun pointed at the head of the loser that surrendered in the war, to make it accept all the treaties.

          • Truth

            Inoue was a Maoist and supporter of Cultural Revolution in Japan as well as China even though the Revolution killed 10s of millions. His very were so extreme, he was kicked out of the Japanese Communist Party.

            I’ll give you one example. The ‘Six Phases of Fleet Life’ is a series of books written in 1808 which describe the voyage of Imperial Mission Zhai Kun to Naha, Okinawas.

            In the book, there is a description: “At 5 o’clock of the 13th I saw Diayutai.” That is what the Communist Party of China now regards as “unarguable evidence” proving that the Senkaku Islands were Chinese territory.

            That’s all! I am sorry but that does not suffice according to International Law!

            Of course, the CPC and its troll army also ignores that Zhai Kun also wrote, “This mountain is within the boundary of the Ryukyus. That is, Diayutai and Chiweiyu, located between Jilongshan and Gumishan, are consequently no-man’s land, neither belonging to the Qing Dynasty nor to the Ryukyus.

            Understand? A Chinese Imperial envoy saying, “no-man’s land, neither belonging to the Qing Dynasty nor to the Ryukyus”.

            There are many other such points but none really matter that much. The bottomline is that International Law rules now, now medieval Chinese myths and legends.

            The island were no-man’s lands — terra nullius. Japan surveyed them. Found they were unoccupied and unused. Legally claimed them according to International Law and occupied them.

            Now, to understand what occupation means, you have to understand and accept very basic legal principles e.g. possession is 9/10th of the law” and “use is, or lose it”.

            Japan has now occupied it and used it since 1895. It has the best claim of Sovereignty.

            All China is doing is making a big fuss and threatening, like North Korea, so it can get a bigger percentage of any oil or gas found in the waters around it.

            It has nothing to do with patriotism, nationalism, morals or ethics; it is about the money. China is beating itself up with anger and jealousy because Japan has been lucky.

            When Japan went to the expense of surveying the islands, all they were worth were a few fish, some feathers and some bird shit which is probably why the Chinese were not interested with them, that and the Japanese were better sailors. It’s Japan’s good luck and now China is so upset.

            It’s like a big baby throwing its toys around because Momma Japan won’t give it an ice cream. China has sucked on Momma Japan’s teats for so long and now just it wants more of her milk.

      • chinditone2

        Whirled Peas – stop being disengenous – you know that the Diaoyou’s are Chinese and you also know that Japan is frightened of the ICJ – as Noda refused to take the Diaoyou to the ICJ but was happy to take the Dodko to the ICJ. Japan is trying to pretend that there is no sovereignty issue over the Diaoyou so that it does not have to go to the ICJ. Its a scam and the Japanese know that the Chinese know this!! http://www.thefreelibrary.com/U.S.+considered+withholding+return+of+Senkaku+Islands+to+Japan.-a0109021656

      • chinditone2

        This is nonsense. US declassified records show that Nixon and the US were fully aware of the disputed ownership and used this to get concessions out of Jpan for returning the Islands to Japan’s administershp Nixon could just have easily put the islands into the joint custody of Taiwan/Japan/ and the PRC. Read the article carefully

        http://www.thefreelibrary.com/U.S.+considered+withholding+return+of+Senkaku+Islands+to+Japan.-a0109021656

  • Guest

    When the country is threaten by a neighbor though war is never a best solution but it must be ready for war. It is quite understandable.

  • Whirled Peas

    Then China should NOT have taken the issue off the shelf in 1992 by outright claiming the islands via its “Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone” and via continually trespassing into Japanese administered waters in the mid to late 2000′s, thereby angering certain nationalistic Japanese forces and forcing the Japanese gov’t to purchase the islands.. China needs to understand that its own actions have repercussions.

  • Truth

    China and Japan did not “decide”.

    Deng Xiaoping made a one side statement. That is all.

    You’ve been told this before and had it patiently explained to you. Please do not repeat this falsehood.

    Thank you

  • Whirled Peas

    The Kissinger clip itself says nothing about a decision between Japan and the PRC to lay aside the issue of Senkaku Islands sovereignty. It was the CCTV commenter that said that.

    All the Kissinger clip says is that to Kissinger’s knowledge the US was never actively involved in determining between Japan and China who the islands belonged to. In other words, when the US occupied the Ryukyus including Senkaku in 1945 they were assumed to be Japan’s (since Japan had legally annexed them). The question never arose — is it Japan’s or China’s — until oil was discovered decades later. And China and Taiwan didn’t raise a peep in 1945 (although later in 1952 China was quite vocal that Spratley, Pratas, and Paracels belonged to China).

    But as I mentioned elsewhere, whether or not there was an agreement to lay aside the issue, Japan certainly maintained the status quo. It continued to administer the islands as usual (collected tax from leasee, patrolled the waters). Japan didn’t even do new construction. It was China’s behavior that changed.