The Diaoyu/Senkaku Dispute: Analyzing Chinese and Japanese Perspectives

Author(s): Tsuyoshi Kawasaki, Yves Tiberghien

Published: October 04, 2012 in Canada-Asia Agenda (12 pages)

Abstract:

Relations between China and Japan have deteriorated to a near all-time low as the dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands continues. Two Canadian experts weigh-in to analyze Chinese and Japanese perspectives on competing claims and underlying motives fueling the dispute. In examining the Chinese perspective, Yves Tiberghien, contends that there are three key components to China’s position: the historical claim, the fishing claim and the political reality. For Tsuyoshi Kawasaki, two central players, Governor Ishihara and the Noda government, are key to understanding Japan’s position in the dispute.

To read ‘The Diaoyu/Senkaku Dispute: Analyzing the Chinese Perspective’ by Yves Tiberghien, click here.

To read ‘The Diaoyu/Senkaku Dispute: Analyzing the Japanese Perspective’ by Tsuyoshi Kawasaki, click here.

Comments

/comment-guidelines?ajax=true

400

ajax

Commenting guidelines

R.. Chiang (visitor), 10:27am, 10/05/2012

According to Yves Tiberghien:

According to Yves Tiberghien: “Canada could encourage the two countries to seek a joint institutional solution, such as a joint organization to manage the fish supply and regulate access for all sides.” A similar suggestion was made by Takeshita of Mizuho International on BNN (Business News Network, Sep 18, 2012). The Takeshita solution to resolve the “grey zone” on disputed islands is to let each country “administer six months each, and leaving beer for each other”. Suggestions by Tiberghien and Takeshita remind me of King Solomon’s judgement to split the baby in dispute in half. Only the side with no legitimate claim will agree to such solution. Would Canada agree to sharing Canadian Arctic Sovereignty, and sharing the Hans Island with Greenland? Takeshita’s suggest that the dispute on the Diaoyu Islands be settled by having Japan and China to “administer six months each, and leaving beer for each other” points to the fact that Japan is not the rightful owner of Diaoyu Islands. With Arctic Sovereignty and the Hans Island at issue Canada must be very careful not to compromise it rights by any suggestions of joint ownership in sovereignty disputes among foreign nations. Japan is in dispute with all its Asian neighbours: Russia, Korean and China. Had it not be for the US military might, Japan would likely approve the purchase of the US Aleutian Islands from an alleged “Japanese owner” in a Japanese court. According to Yves Tiberghien: “Canada could encourage the two countries to seek a joint institutional solution, such as a joint organization to manage the fish supply and regulate access for all sides.” A similar suggestion was made by Takeshita of Mizuho International on BNN (Business News Network, Sep 18, 2012). The Take...more

R.. Chiang (visitor), 12:13pm, 10/05/2012

Tsuyoshi Kawasaki Report: A

Tsuyoshi Kawasaki Report: A Serious Error of Extrapolation. In 1972, the then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and then Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka reached agreement on putting aside their differences on Diaoyu Islands. Ignoring the key fact of the agreement, which calls for both Japan and China to put aside the differences in Diaoyu Islands, Tsuyoshi Kawasaki advance the Japanese extrapolation of China “ceding” to “the de facto Japanese control” in his report: “In specific terms, here the status quo—often called “tana-agéhōshiki” (shelving formula)—refers to an implicit political agreement between Japan and China since the 1970s, to leave the Senkakus and its surrounding water under de facto Japanese control with each side refraining from any provocative moves: Japan would not erect permanent buildings on the islands, and China would not send in Chinese ships to cross the “Japanese” territorial water boundary surrounding the islands. Putting aside the differences must not be construed as “leave the Senkakus and its surrounding water under de facto Japanese control” and definitely not “Japanese” territorial water boundary surrounding the islands. Kawasaki has the responsibility to point this out in if he wants Canadians to fully appreciate the facts. Japan steadfastly refuses to admit to its aggression against Asian nations and the atrocities against humanity during WWII. Japan hides behind its conscription of women and girls in Korea, China to serve as sex slaves for the Imperial Army. Yet it clings to its claim of “Japanese” territorial waters” during WWII. The Japanese claim might as well certainly include Hawaii and the entire Pacific Ocean.Tsuyoshi Kawasaki Report: A Serious Error of Extrapolation. In 1972, the then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai and then Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka reached agreement on putting aside their differences on Diaoyu Islands. Ignoring the key fact of the agreement, which calls for both Japan and China to put aside the difference...more

Martin Sun (visitor), 9:18pm, 10/05/2012

Most people have missed the

Most people have missed the role the US is playing in the whole issue. In fact that IS, yes IS, the root of the whole issue!

True Canadian (visitor), 9:54am, 10/06/2012

On the Asia Pacific Article,

On the Asia Pacific Article, possible response could include the following: Canada must back the truth: In 1895 Japan annexed Taiwan Province and its adjacent Islands, which included Diaoyu Islands from China. At the end of WWII, all territories (Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan) were returned to the rightful owners. Fishermen in coastal China and the newly returned province of Taiwan returned to the fishing grounds including the Daioyu Islands. The Philippine Islands and the Ryukyu Islands were held in trust by USA in order that the liberated people of these lands may determine their own destiny and have their own nation. While the Philippine Islands became a republic in 1946, the US kept the Ryukyu Islands as an US military outpost, The people of Ryukyu Islands were denied their right to self- determination. The US government underhandedly “assigned” the Ryukyu Islands to Japan to serve US strategic self-interest. Instead of returning the Daioyu Islands to Taiwan, the US government, likewise, underhandedly “assigned” the Islands to Japan. The US violated its custodian responsibility. It is indisputable that the PEOPLE of China and Taiwan are the rightful owner of the Daioyu Islands. Japan is the aggressor all along. Canada faces a similar sovereignty challenge from USA and Greenland on Canadian Arctic and the Northwest Passage, as well as the Hans Island. Canada must support the rightful owner of Daioyu islands, namely the people of China and Taiwan, Any suggestion of “Joint Ownership” between China and Japan will jeopardize Canadian claims to the Arctics and Hans Island.” On the Asia Pacific Article, possible response could include the following: Canada must back the truth: In 1895 Japan annexed Taiwan Province and its adjacent Islands, which included Diaoyu Islands from China. At the end of WWII, all territories (Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan) were returned to the rightful owners. Fishermen i...more

David Jones (visitor), 9:24pm, 10/08/2012

As a business executive

As a business executive engaged in both China and Japan, I must point out that Zhou Enlai and Kakuei Tanaka agreed on the Senkaku issues being put aside for the time being, until the next generation finds a solution when they opened the diplomacy in 1972. I do not know too many details, but judging from the documents, Zhou Enlai, along with Deng Xiaoping agreed that Senkakus would be possessed by Japan as a part of Okinawa Islands which were returned by the U.S. In fact, according to a paper report, Zhou Enlai admitted that the Senkakus would not have been issued if there was no oil resource found. Basically, China and Taiwan started the claims right after finding the oil reserve around the Senkakus. I witnessed the People’s Daily report printed in 1953 regarding Okinawa Islands including Senkakus, in which the paper refers them as Japanese territories. I also noted that school geographic text book in Taiwan printed in 1969 states Senkakus as part of Japan. But in 1971, Taiwan reprinted it with the northern border line bent toward the Northeast. Regarding China’s claim back to 15th century, China lists several publications including “Voyage with a Tail Wind”, and “Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu (An Illustrated Description of Three Countries), there is no copy of “Voyage with Tail Wind” in these days so it is difficult for China to claim based on this publication. For “An Illustrated Description of Three Countries”, China claims that the color of the islands between Okinawa and China is pink, same as that of China. However, Taiwan is filed in yellow so the map of “An Illustrated Description of Three Countries” does not constitute as an evidence supporting China’s claim. Overall, China’s claim backdated to 15th century is not legitimate. All of the world should note that China and Taiwan started because of their appetite to eat the potential oil reserve in 1971.As a business executive engaged in both China and Japan, I must point out that Zhou Enlai and Kakuei Tanaka agreed on the Senkaku issues being put aside for the time being, until the next generation finds a solution when they opened the diplomacy in 1972. I do not know too many details, but judging from the documents, Zhou Enlai...more

David Jones (visitor), 9:27pm, 10/08/2012

There is no reason for Japan

There is no reason for Japan to compromise with China on this territorial issue. The evidence and legitimacy of Japanese claim are sufficient. Japan should continue to possess the Senkaku Islands by themselves, although Japan may invite Chinese researchers for fishery matters and climate changes in friendly manners.There is no reason for Japan to compromise with China on this territorial issue. The evidence and legitimacy of Japanese claim are sufficient. Japan should continue to possess the Senkaku Islands by themselves, although Japan may invite Chinese researchers for fishery matters and climate changes in friendly manners....more

David Jones (visitor), 1:43am, 10/09/2012

Yves quotes> While China did

Yves quotes> While China did not use the European method of planting a flag and building fortifications on the islands, it considers its mapping, documenting, and fishing around the islands as functional equivalents of taking possession of them. Mapping, documenting and fishing around the island are not legitimate to claim the sovereignty over the island in question. As he states, the European method is a must to declare the sovereignty. In addition, all of the maps and documents are questionable in terms of accuracy. In fact, “Voyage with a tail wind”, which China claims as a document actually does not exist.Yves quotes> While China did not use the European method of planting a flag and building fortifications on the islands, it considers its mapping, documenting, and fishing around the islands as functional equivalents of taking possession of them. Mapping, documenting and fishing around the island are not legitimate to ...more

David Jones (visitor), 7:19pm, 10/09/2012

True Canadian is totally

True Canadian is totally wrong. Japan did not annex Senkakus as the result of Qing-Japan War in 1894 to 1895. In fact, Treaty of Shimonoseki does not state anything about Senkakus. The treaty covers only Taiwan, Penghu, and Liaodong Peninsula, which was returned to ROC after the three nations’ joint intervention. Moreover, Japan found Senkakus in 1885, and it took ten years to finalize to annex the Senkakus. (Source) Article 1: China recognizes definitively the full and complete independence and autonomy of Korea, and, in consequence, the payment of tribute and the performance of ceremonies and formalities by Korea to China, that are in derogation of such independence and autonomy, shall wholly cease for the future. Articles 2 & 3: China cedes to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty of the Penghu group, Taiwan and the eastern portion of the bay of Liaodong Peninsula together with all fortifications, arsenals and public property. Article 4: China agrees to pay to Japan as a war indemnity the sum of 200,000,000 Kuping taels. Article 5: China opens Shashih, Chungking, Soochow and Hangchow to Japan. Moreover, China is to grant Japan most-favored-nation treatment. The only solution concerning the sovereignty of Senkakus is to have them kept under Japanese. Senkakus’ fall to China makes Taiwan, Sakishima Islands and Okinawa Island as targets for China’s military attacks, which is totally unacceptable. What Canada should do is to stay away from the disputes. For the time being, Canada should see what Japan and Taiwan do concerning the fishing zone and the related agreement to be signed. The minimum requirement is Canada should not side with China/Taiwan, because it could be seen as a betrayal to the western alliance such as NATO. If not only the Canadian Government but also even a single Canadian citizen favors China, it could jeopardize the trust among the international community, especially the western allied countries. The allied country could see Canada as a potential sympathizer with Chinese Communist Party. Support of China’s claim does not help Canada’s sovereignty claim on Hans Island and the Arctic Ocean. Canada should enforce its own control like what Japanese government did by purchasing the islands from a private citizen as the owner of the islands. There is no reason for Canada to support Sinocentrism.True Canadian is totally wrong. Japan did not annex Senkakus as the result of Qing-Japan War in 1894 to 1895. In fact, Treaty of Shimonoseki does not state anything about Senkakus. The treaty covers only Taiwan, Penghu, and Liaodong Peninsula, which was returned to ROC after the three nations’ joint intervention. Moreov...more

David Jones (visitor), 7:33pm, 10/09/2012

Concerning Okinawa’s

Concerning Okinawa’s independence, the most people did not support during the US trusteeship from 1945 to 1972. As the clear majority of Okinawans did not support Okinawa independent of Japan, all of the local political parties were forced to change their manifesto from independence-driven to return-driven. The percentage of people in favor of independence is at best, 20%. This is far below the approval rate of Quebec’s secession from Canada.　 If you try to force Okinawa separate from Japan, it will take more than 100 years. I can say that Quebec separates from Canada much faster.Concerning Okinawa’s independence, the most people did not support during the US trusteeship from 1945 to 1972. As the clear majority of Okinawans did not support Okinawa independent of Japan, all of the local political parties were forced to change their manifesto from independence-driven to return-driven. The percentage ...more

David Jones (visitor), 7:50pm, 10/09/2012

I am posting several links of

I am posting several links of documents issues by ROC and PRC authorities. All recognize that Senkakus are the integral part of Japan. (The People’s Daily published in 1953, Senkaku Island Map.) The Washington Times states that this is a classified PRC government map from 1969 and that it lists the “Senkaku islands” as Japanese territory. PRC map printed in 1960. This is the link concerning the Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu posted previously. Although Senkakus are colored in red, Taiwan is colored in yellow. This map, which PRC uses as the evidence of Senkaku’s ownership by PRC is obviously not legitimate. I am posting several links of documents issues by ROC and PRC authorities. All recognize that Senkakus are the integral part of Japan. (The People’s Daily published in 1953, Senkaku Island Map.) The Washington Times states that this is a classified PRC government map from 1969 and that it lists the “Senka...more

R. Chiang (visitor), 12:07am, 10/10/2012

Yes, indeed the US is the

Yes, indeed the US is the culprit! 1. In June 2012, China and Japan has agreed to direct settlement of trade payments in RMB and Japanese Yeun. This eliminates the need to buy and sell US$ in settling trade balances between the two countries. Uncle Sam will do everything to preserve its monopoly of the US$ as the ONLY international currency for trade. The destablization of the Euro is a vivid example. 2. The US instigates conflicts in South China Sea against China through the Philippines, Brunei, and Vietnam. 3. The Cold War mentallity of Containment is live a well. The US strategy of divide and rule continues. Too bad, Canadians are so blinded to the USA take over of our resource, petroleum, and major industry sectors (actually the retail sector as well) that we sit on the side cheering for the USA.Yes, indeed the US is the culprit! 1. In June 2012, China and Japan has agreed to direct settlement of trade payments in RMB and Japanese Yeun. This eliminates the need to buy and sell US$ in settling trade balances between the two countries. Uncle Sam will do everything to preserve its monopoly of the US$ as the ONLY internati...more

R. Chiang (visitor), 12:59am, 10/10/2012

Though David Jones confesses

Though David Jones confesses that “I do not know too many details, but judging from the documents”, he went on to repeat the Japanese lie that “Zhou Enlai, along with Deng Xiaoping agreed that Senkakus would be possessed by Japan”. The 1972 China Japan Friendship Treat promotes bilateral trade between these two nations. When Tanaka tried to bring up the topic of Diaoyu Islands, Zhou Enlai replied that both countries should put aside their differences on Diaoyu Islands.

There was no such thing as “agreed to granting Japan the control of the Islands”. Had this been indeed the case, there was no differences to put aside in 1972. To transform the “putting aside the differences” for the future into the Chinese “agreed to giving control to Japan” is a lie.

Another lie: “…Senkakus would be possessed by Japan as a part of Okinawa Islands which were returned by the U.S.” The Ryukyu Islands was a sovereign country prior to Japanese annexation in 1879 by the Meiji government. After WWII, territories captured by Japan were liberated. The Ryukyu Islands, like that of the Philippines, were held “in Trust” by US administration.

As True Canadian pointed out: “the US kept the Ryukyu Islands as an US military outpost. The people of Ryukyu Islands were denied their right to self-determination”. The US has no right to “assign” the administration of the Ryukyu Islands to Japan, let along “return” the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa) to Japan.Anyone who claims that territories captured and colonized by Japan should be “returned” to Japan is to endorse the culprits of WWII. Japan has yet to admit to its war crimes of the past, let alone apologize to the people of Asia for its atrocities.

...more

David Jones (visitor), 2:26pm, 10/15/2012

R. Chiang needs to find what

R. Chiang needs to find what Okinawans wanted. They chose to be a part of Japan instead of going independent. See my posting at 7:33pm, 10/09/2012. You can’t force them to be independent of Japan. Image how you feel if I strongly promote Tibet’s and Uyghur’s independence from China. Regarding the Zhou Enlai - Kakutei Tanaka joint statement in 1972, followed by Deng Xiaoping - Takeo Fukuda joint statement on the occasion of the Sino-Japan Peace Treaty, this is not false. The reason why you say as “lie” is the Chinese educational systems have been distorted since 1992 enacted by Jiang Zemin. Voices from Chinese side are always inconsistent. Both countries agreed on the status quo, which means Japan would have the sovereignty and ownership over the Senkakus for the time being. The issue would be resolved by the leaders in the future generations. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121012f1.html Quite>In 1972, when then-Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka and then-Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai normalized bilateral ties, Zhou reportedly suggested leaving the Senkaku issue for future generations to resolve. The U.S. returned the islets to Japan along with Okinawa the same year. In 1978, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping also proposed shelving the matter for the time being at a new conference in Tokyo after the two sides signed a bilateral peace and friendship treaty. It is true that “Zhou Enlai replied that both countries should put aside their differences on Diaoyu Islands”. You are deliberately misstating one condition, which is the sovereignty and ownership on the islands in question would be kept under Japanese for a whole. s of the 1972 joint statement, Senkakus have been under Japanese control. If your leader wished to claim the sovereignty on the islands, they should have refused the draft of joint statement, leaving China as one of the only two Stalinist states. R. Chiang needs to find what Okinawans wanted. They chose to be a part of Japan instead of going independent. See my posting at 7:33pm, 10/09/2012. You can’t force them to be independent of Japan. Image how you feel if I strongly promote Tibet’s and Uyghur’s independence from China. Regarding the Zhou Enlai -...more

David Jones (visitor), 8:59pm, 10/15/2012

You are totally

You are totally anti-American. US trusteeship was established under the various international agreements including one signed by Chiang Kai Shek, President of ROC, while the allied power recognized that Japan has the residual sovereignty on all of Nansei Shoto Islands including Okinawa and Senkaku. http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/archive/dulles.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute#United_States_position Quote>In May 1971, A report compiled by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency said “The Japanese claim to sovereignty over the Senkakus is strong, and the burden of proof of ownership would seem to fall on the Chinese”. The CIA also said in related documents that any dispute between Japan, China and Taiwan over the islands would not have arisen, had it not been for the discovery around 1968 of potential oil reserves on the nearby continental shelf.[63]You are totally anti-American. US trusteeship was established under the various international agreements including one signed by Chiang Kai Shek, President of ROC, while the allied power recognized that Japan has the residual sovereignty on all of Nansei Shoto Islands including Okinawa and Senkaku. http://www.niraikanai.wwma...more

David Jones (visitor), 11:54pm, 10/15/2012

Regarding your false remark

Regarding your false remark of “agreed to granting Japan the control of the Islands”, there is no way to “grant”, simply because Senkakus have been the integral parts of Japan since 1895 with the interval from 1945 to 1972 due to the U.S. trusteeship, with the residual sovereignty of Japan even in such a period. Another false remark of “The people of Ryukyu Islands were denied their right to self-determination”, Okinawans did not choose to go independent. Instead, the majority preferred to return to Japan. Do you want Tibet and Uyghur to become independent states? How about Quebec? At least, sovereignists are currently forming the minority government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute Quote>During the San Francisco Peace Treaty discussions, John Foster Dulles, chief U.S. delegate to the peace conference, set forth the concept that Japan had “residual sovereignty” over the Ryukyu Islands. According to an official analysis prepared by the U.S. Army, “residual Sovereignty” meant that “the United States will not transfer its sovereign powers over the Ryukyu Islands to any nation other than Japan.” Quote>On June 7, 1971, President Richard Nixon confirmed Japan’s “residual sovereignty” over the Senkaku Islands just before a deal to return Okinawa Prefecture to Japan in a conversation with his national security adviser Henry Kissinger. Kissinger also told Nixon that “these (Senkaku) islands stayed with Okinawa” when Japan returned Taiwan to China after the end of World War II in 1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryukyu_independence_movement When asked whether Okinawa should become independent if the Japanese government allowed (or did not allow) Okinawa to freely decide its future, 24.9% replied Okinawa should become independent with permission, and 20.5% in case of no permission from the Japanese government. Those who believed Okinawa should not declare independence were 58.7% and 57.4% respectively. Regarding your false remark of “agreed to granting Japan the control of the Islands”, there is no way to “grant”, simply because Senkakus have been the integral parts of Japan since 1895 with the interval from 1945 to 1972 due to the U.S. trusteeship, with the residual sovereignty of Japan even in such a peri...more

Cris Mock (visitor), 1:04am, 10/18/2012

Please review the history -

Please review the history - Diaoyu Islands are an inherent territory of China, there are collections of historial documents to prove. Wokou(Japanese pivates) raided the coastlines of China & Korea from 13th Century onwards. 1st Sino-Japanese War 1894/1895, Qing ceded Penghu & Taiwan, and officially abandoned its claims to the Ryukyus. Russo-Japanese War l904/1905, the Japanese Imperial Navy attacked the Russian Far East Fleet three hours before declaration of war. This battle was on Chinese earth. Korean occupied by Japan & declared as an Imperial Japanese protectorate(colony) 1910/1945 2nd Sino-Japanese War 1937/1945, the Japanese demanding to search for a missing soldier, actually it was fabricated in order to provide a pretext for the invasion of China(the Lugouqao Incident), the slogan was “destroy China within three months” - Nanjing Massacre, comfort women, chemicals, bacteria…… Dec 07,1941 - Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, lack of any formal warning, and this came as a profound shock to the American people. How could you compromise with a country like that? Please review the history - Diaoyu Islands are an inherent territory of China, there are collections of historial documents to prove. Wokou(Japanese pivates) raided the coastlines of China & Korea from 13th Century onwards. 1st Sino-Japanese War 1894/1895, Qing ceded Penghu & Taiwan, and officially abandoned its claims ...more

Diaoyu Island Owner (visitor), 2:23am, 10/18/2012

Funny, I am not aware of the

Funny, I am not aware of the American asking the people of the Philippines whether they wanted to return to the Spanish colonist, or whether they wanted to join the USA.If the Americans really respect the autonomy of the Ryukyu people, they would accord them the right to form their own government and hold free election to select their own representatives.The history of Japanese colonization is the same as the Europeans: Japanese nationals colonized Ryukyu Islands and supressed the indigenous population and repress their culture. Japan did the same during their occupation of Korea and Taiwan. As someone who claims to know little about the issue of Diaoyu Island, David Jones presents twisted logic by trying to polarize Canadians by his reference of preserving French culture in Quebec. NOT GOOD AT ALL.Funny, I am not aware of the American asking the people of the Philippines whether they wanted to return to the Spanish colonist, or whether they wanted to join the USA.If the Americans really respect the autonomy of the Ryukyu people, they would accord them the right to form their own government and hold free election to select...more

R.. Chiang (visitor), 10:21am, 10/18/2012

Cris Mock is right. The

Cris Mock is right. The direction Japan is going, its politicians (note: I am NOT saying the Japanese people) will repeat it trickeries of the last two centuries Japanese politicians have not given up their Imperial Empire dream of dominance in Asia. With a cash of spent nuclear waste (produce by first generation nuclear reactors, as reviewed to the world during their melt down in Fukushima after the Mar.11, 2011 earthquake) Japan will not hesistate to deploy dirty bombs against its neighbour, Canada included. David Jones might recall the northeast coal contract Japan signed with Bill Bennett of BC in the 1970’s. BC funded for the 300 km railway to the mines in Tumbleridge area. The Federal gov. expanded the Prince Rupert coal port. When prices collapsed, Japan walked away from its contractual obligations in 1984. How could any Canadian not remember this trickery? I AM TRULY SAD that any British Columbian would choose to ignore history and sell its soul to the Japanese Imperialists.Cris Mock is right. The direction Japan is going, its politicians (note: I am NOT saying the Japanese people) will repeat it trickeries of the last two centuries Japanese politicians have not given up their Imperial Empire dream of dominance in Asia. With a cash of spent nuclear waste (produce by first generation nuclear reactor...more

David Jones (visitor), 4:36pm, 10/20/2012

Quote>Cris Mock (visitor),

Quote>Cris Mock (visitor), 1:04am, 10/18/2012 Please review the history - Diaoyu Islands are an inherent territory of China, there are collections of historical documents to prove. Cris Mock seems to be relying on the evidences which do not exist including “Voyage with a Tail Wind”. How about your country? China annexed Tibet and Uyghur illegally, and now invading the islands in East Sea (Vietnam name), West Philippines (Filipino name), and Senkaku Islands of Japan. In addition, China invaded Vietnam in 1978. Regarding Tumbleridge, your allegation is wrong. See Wikipedia page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumbler_Ridge,_British_Columbia Quote>In 1981, a consortium of Japanese steel mills agreed to purchase 100 million tonnes of coal over 15 years for US$7.5 billion from two mining companies, Denison Mines Inc. and the Teck Corporation, who were to operate the Quintette mine and the Bullmoose mine respectively. Declining global coal prices after 1981, and weakening Asian markets in the late 1990s, made the town’s future uncertain and kept it from achieving its projected population of 10,000 people. The uncertainty dissuaded investment and kept the economy from diversifying. When price reductions were forced onto the mines, the Quintette mine was closed in 2000 production and the town lost about half its population. Since 2000 rising coal prices have led to the opening of new mines in and near the municipality by Northern Energy & Mining Inc. (now majority-owned by Anglo American Met Coal) and Western Canadian Coal (now Walter Energy). Regarding comfort women, most of them joined the workforce voluntarily. Before demanding Japanese for apology, Korean should make sincere apology for their barbaric acts in Vietnam. http://lang-8.com/429985/journals/1695247 And, those called as comfort women were surprisingly rich. It is widely reported that Korean girls are illegally working as prostitutes in the US, Canada, Australia, EU countries and Japan. Korean has its own culture of prostitution so that the allegation of enforced sex slavery is not legitimate. http://www.rjkoehler.com/2012/06/15/tired-of-beating-up-on-drunks-chosun-declares-war-on-korean-prostitutes-abroad/ Regarding Nanjing, I am in support of the remarks by Hon. Takashi Kawamura, Mayor of Nagoya where I often visit. In fact, the population of Nanjing just before Japanese advancement was only 250,000, and it increased Hon. Kawamura says that his father was treated friendly by the people in Nanjing until his return to Japan in the past period. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120223a5.html http://www.ne.jp/asahi/unko/tamezou/nankin/whatreally/chapter0107.html Quote>Cris Mock (visitor), 1:04am, 10/18/2012 Please review the history - Diaoyu Islands are an inherent territory of China, there are collections of historical documents to prove. Cris Mock seems to be relying on the evidences which do not exist including “Voyage with a Tail Wind”. How about your country? China a...more

David Jones (visitor), 4:42pm, 10/20/2012

Diaoyu Island Owner (visitor)

Diaoyu Island Owner (visitor) Quotes>they would accord them the right to form their own government and hold free election to select their own representatives. You are totally wrong. The people in Okinawa chose to return to Japan in every democratic presentation such as election, Even during the US trusteeship, Japan had the residual sovereignty on all of the Ryukyu Islands. By the way, Diaoyu Island Owner, are you Mr. Yoshihiko Noda, Prime Minister of Japan? Diaoyu Island Owner (visitor) Quotes>they would accord them the right to form their own government and hold free election to select their own representatives. You are totally wrong. The people in Okinawa chose to return to Japan in every democratic presentation such as election, Even during the US trusteeship, Japan had the res...more

True Canadian (visitor), 3:08pm, 11/19/2012

I disagree. There are valid

I disagree. There are valid reasons for Japan to compromise with China on this territorial issue. The evidence and legitimacy of Japanese claim are insufficient. Japan should learn to respect the truth. Seems to me, historically the Japanese have struggled in this subject (ex. the Hong Kong invasion in 1941 which the Japanese claimed to be “liberation” according to their elementary school curriculum). You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all the time. ~ Abraham LincolnI disagree. There are valid reasons for Japan to compromise with China on this territorial issue. The evidence and legitimacy of Japanese claim are insufficient. Japan should learn to respect the truth. Seems to me, historically the Japanese have struggled in this subject (ex. the Hong Kong invasion in 1941 which the Japanese ...more

True Canadian (visitor), 3:09pm, 11/19/2012

Agreed. Well said -

Agreed. Well said - “twisted” is the word.