Chinese Geopolitics

One good move to be considered is for the leaders of both China and Japan to talk through their serious problems. PM Abe proposed a meeting with President Xi at the forthcoming APEC meeting to be held in China. Both leaders should initially talk behind closed doors over the islands issue and other sensitive/problematic matters that have caused each side to be disgruntled. This would be the preliminary step in trying to find solutions to outstanding problems. There should be no interference by any other country or intermediary. Both China and Japan should try their best to seek consensus for the good of their respective countries and their people. It would be a step-by-step approach. Continuing belligerency (words and actions) between the 2 countries would benefit no one except "boost" their respective national pride, leading to possible serious hostilities/consequences to both countries, effecting the region as a whole.

Blackstone said:

Let's not drag history all the way back to the Third Sino-japanese war of 1895, because both sides have lots of historical documents to present. Instead, let's stick with the 1978 Peace and Friendship Treaty, since it's the least controversial and best understood document in recent Sino-japanese dealings. Also, some of the 1978 negotiators are still alive and have given statements on the Diaoyu issue.

Click to expand...

The 1978 Peace and Friendship Treaty is the cornerstone of matters between China and Japan as it obviously occurred way after Treaty of SF (which neither Chinas were signatories), US handing over "administration" of the islands, etc. It is also an official treaty between the current govts of China and Japan. And in that treaty, it clearly states the Joint Communique of 1972 as the basis for relations between the two countries and the principles enunciated in the Communique should be strictly observed. This treaty is still in full force, no one has presented any written notice of termination. Major relevant bullet points are Japan recognizes PRC as the sole legal govt of China, respects the position that Taiwan is a part of China, and maintains its stand under Article 8 of Potsdam Proclamation.

It doesn't matter what arguments are made about Potsdam Proclamation as not being an official treaty, the Japanese govt itself has directly acknowledged it in this 1978 treaty and that makes it official between the two parties involved.

Blackstone said:

3) If US recognizes Japan as legal owner of Diaoyu, why would three generations of American officials say the US takes no position on Diaoyu sovereignty dispute? Is the US talking about some other disputed territory between China and Japan?

Click to expand...

This world, it doesn't matter it's the first, 2nd or 3rd generation. What matter is the current generation.

Next generation, US can say Diaoyu belongs to China and that isn't the point what US say or not.

Diaoyu belongs to who is not what US says. China can say Southern California belongs to the Mexican. What matters, who can enforce Diaoyu belongs to who militarily. That's a cold hard truth fact in this world.

Sovereign states can enforce whatever land they claim as long they have the military capability to do so.

Native palestines that lives for hundreds of years around middle east cannot claim and enforce their own right because they have no military more powerful then the other party that lays the claim. That's the reason why US keep parking its fifth fleet in the middle east.

Diaoyu\Senkaku who's right because both side does not back down and that leaves only 1 solution...that's the military solution, isn't it.

You do understand that you are going around in circles without providing any links which can be verified.

The US Occupying Force did not give Senkaku to Japan, they acknowledged and accepted Japan's territorial claim and had used it as basis in defining the boundaries of Ryukyu Isles.
There are no documents to prove that there was any 1978 negotiations focusing on Senkaku.
There are no documents as evidence that Chinese had administrated Senkaku isles. As I stated before navigational maps are not accepted as evidence of administration by international peers since they are only considered navigational land marks.

As for preference, you can feed it to the dogs. Each nation only considers their own national interest but most industrialized modern nations dictate and justify their actions based on past treaties and official documents they had issued in the past.

advill said:

One good move to be considered is for the leaders of both China and Japan to talk through their serious problems. PM Abe proposed a meeting with President Xi at the forthcoming APEC meeting to be held in China. Both leaders should initially talk behind closed doors over the islands issue and other sensitive/problematic matters that have caused each side to be disgruntled. This would be the preliminary step in trying to find solutions to outstanding problems. There should be no interference by any other country or intermediary. Both China and Japan should try their best to seek consensus for the good of their respective countries and their people. It would be a step-by-step approach. Continuing belligerency (words and actions) between the 2 countries would benefit no one except "boost" their respective national pride, leading to possible serious hostilities/consequences to both countries, effecting the region as a whole.

Click to expand...

At the moment no chance of such talk. China position already hardened and Japan already begin rearming. The naval arms race is on. Japan wish to protect it's gain and ensure her security and China need to avenge past humiliations and restore lost territory....very explosive powder keg situation.

SamuraiBlue said:

Japan's claim towards Senkaku was included within the San Francisco peace treaty so at least all 40 signatory nation acknowledges it.?

Click to expand...

Didn't find anything in the San Francisco Treaty that listed Diaoyu as part of Japan. On the other hand, article 2 (c) states -

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.


So why is Japan claiming there is a dispute with Russia over the Kurils? Looks like cherry picking.

joshuatree said:

Didn't find anything in the San Francisco Treaty that listed Diaoyu as part of Japan. On the other hand, article 2 (c) states -

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.


So why is Japan claiming there is a dispute with Russia over the Kurils? Looks like cherry picking.

Click to expand...

There's a few sovereign nations that cannot be trusted for what they say...here, we have lack of trust. Between words and action. Mutual distrust concerning actions of the member nation contribute, therefore China should be wary of the words and action of Japan and her allies. Do not trust them and fact check.

Here's a piece of news that's geopolitics. Heh, looking at Russian been burned couple of times by the US & Nato allies, Putin doing some of his own round of nuclear proliferation...arming the South America states with "nuclear options". Cuba going nuclear? I wonder what's going in Putin's mind "I had it with the Americans! let them taste the medicines" Hah...


...
BUENOS AIRES — President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and his Argentine counterpart signed deals on nuclear energy and other projects on Saturday in an effort to expand his country’s influence in Latin America.

Russia will help build the third reactor of a nuclear power plant in Argentina, Mr. Putin said after meeting with the Argentine president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, here on Saturday.

Both leaders said the nuclear projects would be for peaceful purposes.
...

Meanwhile US deputy sheriffs in Asia, Japan (* sorry edited* posse of deputies Philippines + Australia + newly minted Vietnamese(from agent orange become star spangle oranges) is doing the little dirty work to constraint China rise less become a hegemon that challenge the world order...

joshuatree said:

Didn't find anything in the San Francisco Treaty that listed Diaoyu as part of Japan. On the other hand, article 2 (c) states -

Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.


So why is Japan claiming there is a dispute with Russia over the Kurils? Looks like cherry picking.

Click to expand...

The San Francisco peace treaty wound back treaties before the Portsmouth Treaty settling the Russo-Japanese War.
On the other hand the sovereignty of Northern territories was defined in 1855 Treaty of Shimoda which both nations agreed on peacefully which is now the basis in territory boundaries.
That is the very reason why the Soviet Union acknowledged that there is a dispute in which present Russia inherited and why they are will to negotiate.
Past treaties are inherited by the newly governing regime to maintain legacy to obtain acceptance by fellow nations.

While Diaoyu\Senkaku is one part of many puzzle that needs to be solve (militarily or otherwise), meanwhile, China continue to build "alliances" with their old friends in the South, stopping by Greece for some business opportunity and continuing effort to setup a new development bank for the developing countries. This is what China needs to do, topic with Japan can be put in the back burner for the moment since its not going anywhere and continue on the others business. Empire building waits for no one...



Business, I sell to you, you sell to me..



Meanwhile, calling all US allies needed, Japan may need to send JSDF to middle east and help US pacify the muslim countries...US may be under attack soon and new defense treaty means Japan need to help protect US from the mullahs..calling all deputies, report to duty...

...
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sunday said the latest of round of Israeli-Palestinian violence shows the region has become increasingly dangerous.

Given the latest conditions on the ground, the Middle East today is “more dangerous than any time in the past,” McCain said on CNN’s "State of the Union."
...