Comments

Posts

Distrust of China Soars: 87% Consider China Untrustworthy

A joint survey conducted by Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun and China’s official Xinhua News Agency has found that 87 percent of Japanese respondents consider China to be untrustworthy:

Also, 90 percent of the Japanese surveyed considered relations between their country and China to be bad, another record high since the Yomiuri began the joint survey with Oriental Outlook Weekly in 2007.

Among Chinese respondents, 81 percent thought bilateral ties were bad and 79 percent said Japan was untrustworthy.

The 2010 survey results are quite different than last year’s results. The 2009 survey had about 50% of Japanese and Chinese respondents saying that relations between their countries were good. It also measured Japanese distrust of China at 69% and Chinese distrust of Japan at 63%.

The Japanese results aren’t at all surprising, considering China’s actions in the latest spat over the Senkaku islands:

China’s state-controlled media pushed a false and sensational version of the events in which the Japanese ships were ramming the Chinese boat.
China’s official response to Japan’s detaining of the trawler captain was shockingly petty.
To force the release of the trawler captain, the Chinese authorities arrested for taking pictures in a “restricted” area. The Japanese, who had not seen any signs or been informed of the fact they were in a “restricted” area, were only released after Japan had freed the trawler captain.
Mobs of young Chinese, many of them enraged by the Chinese media’s false reporting of the incident, participated in anti-Japanese riots in several major Chinese cities.
Because of the incident, the Senkaku Islands became a major news topic in Japan. By introducing the history of the dispute to Japanese readers and viewers, the Japanese media described how the Chinese government mysteriously discovered that that the islands were Chinese territory only after oil had been discovered in the seabed around the islands.

The subsequent leak of footage showing the incident as Japan had described it, and the Chinese government’s efforts to suppress the truth only underline the fact the Chinese government simply cannot be trusted.

—

Akihabara News – Gadgetry from Japan (Subscribe)
Dannychoo.com – Your portal to Japan (Subscribe)

45 comments - What do you think? Posted by James - November 8, 2010 at 7:33 am

Categories: Anti-Japan Tags:

MF DULER

China doesn’t like Japan, Japan doesn’t like China. This isn’t anything shocking. Business as usual.

yankdownunder

Chinese army killed a Tibetan nun. China said the Tibetans had
attacked the army and they shot to defend themselves. But the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQIdaR0J70

shows Chinese government was lying.

Business as usual.

chris

OMFG China lied .. . . . . NO WAI! They always tell truth long time!

jcpb

Rong time?

NanatsuYoru

I remember reading that on top of trying to remove the video, China says the fact that who rammed who wasn’t important, but that the Japanese were wrong for being there and intimidating the Chinese crew (against all evidence, of course).

Which implies that the Chinese recognize that they lied about their version of the ramming. Surprised I haven’t really heard too many Chinese calling the video fake though.
Rob A

I think the fact that Japan’s distrust of China, and vice-versa, were greater than 60%+ when nothing in particular had occurred is of more note than the fact that after all of this it’s at 80%+. They seem like they just love to hate each other.

Just end the animosity. China was immature, and got its way. Japan was in the right, but acquiesced to end the issue. It’s over, stop it already.

If Japan’s media continues to focus this BS with China, I’m going to begin to lose respect for them as well.

Don’t feed the trolls, Japan.
Uselesser

It is not correct that China only have shown interest in the islands recently. Diaoyu Islands as Senkaku Islands are called in Chinese have been on the Chinese map from the 13th century. These islands were on the record of China when they had official visits to Okinawa which was a kingdom then. Japan has controlled these rocks from 1872 up until present. China on the other hand think that since they discovered the islands first and named them first it should belong to China.

modern man

To Uselesser; We live in the modern world, and possession of territory should follow legal and political rules of today. If you are saying that China knew about these islands from long ago, and that China had these islands shown on their maps since dynastic times, perhaps you are correct. But, does China have any record of legal possession or administration of these islands? Japan’s steps are all legal. In 1872, Japan officially integrated these islands as part of the homeland. From the Meiji era up to the pre-war days of Showa, there were people actually living on Uotsuri Island and ran their own fishery business. Of course they paid real estate and income taxes to the central government from what they earned.
If China is to claim the islands are theirs, then they would have to prove that the Chinese government actually ADMINISTERED these islands before the arrival of the Japanese residents.
If a country can claim a given land as theirs only because they knew its existence, or had discovered the place before someone else, then Italy can claim the entire American continent since Columbus was from Gennova,Italy, right? Or, since Columbas was hired by the Crown of Spain, Spain could also claim the same area. Then why doesn’t China claim California as theirs, based on ancient records of a Chinese guy traveling across Pacific all the way to northern Mexico ?

Uselesser

I’m Japanese. I think China’s reaction has been way over the top but. I am just trying to understand the Chinese view. The fact is that Taiwan, China and Japan all claim these islands. The question we should be asking is or the question China wants Japan to ask is. Were the Diaoyu Islands part of Taiwan or Okinawa before 1895? According to Chinese view.

>For several centuries, the Diaoyu Islands have been administered as one part of Taiwan and have always been used exclusively by Chinese fishermen as an base for fishing.

>The earliest historical records of the islands are Chinese navigation records from 1403, and references to Diaoyu Islands occur in Chinese logs and Chinese maps of the Liu Chiu chain from that time. For several centuries, the Diaoyu Islands have been administered as one part of Taiwan and have always been used exclusively by Chinese fishermen as an base for fishing,

http://www1.american.edu/TED/ice/DIAOYU.HTM

These islands were taken by force by Japan in 1872. The U.S. and Japan signed the Okinawa Reversion Treaty which included Diaoyutai Islands as part of Okinawa. If these claims are true then I can understand why China is upset.

Snapple

If you’re talking about Taiwan then that would support the Taiwanese assertion that the islands belong to them. I know China thinks by extension it would belong to them, but not really. The governments are different and if it does belong to Taiwan, the money gained would most likely go primarily to Taiwan.

http://www.google.com/profiles/havill Eido Inoue

“Been on the Chinese map from the 13th century?”

You mean like this Chinese map (published by the PRC in 1969)?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/15/inside-the-ring-145889960/

MF DULER

Interesting…Chinese official sources and citations supposedly can’t be trusted, but when an official 1960′s Chinese map that shows Diaoyudao as Japanese territory, or when an old People’s Daily article lists it as Japanese territory, then they suddenly can be trusted? So, in other words, we can’t trust Chinese sources when it contravenes what Japan says, but we can trust them when they back up what Japan says? Fuzzy logic there, my friend.

helical

What can be trusted is that what the Chinese Communist Party claims is never bound by any pesky things like facts or logic. It will be bent, skewed, or just be plain ignored in favor of what it wants. Which means it’s less likely to be so when it’s about something that China doesn’t really care about.
Did China have motivation in the 1960′s to falsify any facts and claim that island? Not really. So we can trust what they said back then, more than what is claimed today when China has the motivation to take those islands for itself, along with the huge undersea petroleum reserves.
MF DULER

“So we can trust what they said back then, more than what is claimed today”

We can trust sources from 1969, the worst and most chaotic year of the Cultural Revolution, more than we can trust sources from now? You must be insane.

“What can be trusted is that what the Chinese Communist Party claims is never bound by any pesky things like facts or logic”

And the LDP is? Would you trust a single word out of Ishihara’s mouth?
http://www.chirimotsumoreba.net Jordan

I think you are missing the point MF DULER. Perhaps, purposefully so. China’s claim to those islands is as old as the CPC’s knowledge of the natural gas deposits buried beneath. In terms of claims to the islands and the deposits beneath them, their claim is rather weak.

By your logic, they should be given to China simply because China demands them. Territorial sovereignty is legitimized through 1. the nation that currently occupies the area in question and 2. by documentation of sovereignty. Japan has both.

If China is serious about occupying Senkakus by force, like they Tibet and other areas in what is considered China, they’re gonna have a tough time of it. I hope they never get a mind to do so.
ponta

“We can trust sources from 1969, the worst and most chaotic year of the Cultural Revolution, more than we can trust sources from now? You must be insane.”

So which Chinese official document do you trust?　like 大清一統志 in 18 century according to which senakaku is outside of Taiwan?

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/politics/policy/101104/plc1011040633010-n1.htm

『大清一統志』は清代に３度、編纂され、１８４２年に完成した第三次編は全５６０巻に及ぶ。
　下條教授によると、台湾（府）に関する記述は３３５巻にあり、同書はその北東端について「北至鶏籠城（北、鶏籠城に至る）」と記載。同本に収録されている「台湾府図」にも「鶏籠城界（境）」と書かれていた。
　同時代の台湾の地方誌『台湾府誌』にも同様の記述があるほか、台湾の付属島嶼の範囲が緯度、経度で掲載されている『淡水庁全図』（７１年）でも、尖閣諸島は「その範囲外」になっていた。
http://www.google.com/profiles/havill Eido Inoue

You don’t trust Chinese sources from 1969? Are you sure you want to stand by that statement? Because I can have a LOT of fun with you if that’s your position. I guess China should return Zhenbao Island (and many other areas of land) to Russia if 1969 China (the time of of the serious Sino-Soviet border conflicts) can’t be trusted.
MF DULER

I’m not interested in debating whether or not Zhenbao should be returned. I don’t care either way. I’m interested in pointing out the fact that it’s disingenuous and hypocritical to say that “XXX source from China is useless propaganda garbage, but YYY source from China is totally acceptable.” You can’t selectively pick sources and materials that support your position and then call yourself honest. Either all Chinese sources are to be believed or they can’t.

“Because I can have a LOT of fun with you if that’s your position”

Get a life.
Hage Oyaji

China say that these islands belonged to Taiwan before 1872 and that these islands were taken by force by Japan. The question China wants Japan to ask is who did these islands belong to before 1872. I am fairly neutral about this issue.
Fat Tony

Even if you think the 13th century map is a valid source (and it may well be), it seems to me that as we know the authors of the 1969 map (the Chinese government), the date it was produced, and the reason it was produced (for official use), and the fact that it was produced well AFTER some 13th century scroll that has the Senkaku islands “on it,” is fairly clear recognition that the Chinese government didn’t think that any historical claims which may have existed prior to 1969 were particularly strong.

The best solution, as for the other territorial disputes in this area, would be to take the case to the ICJ. In that regard I’ve been a little disappointed that Japan, which usually presses for an ICJ resolution on Dokdo/Takeshima, hasn’t done so here. They don’t have much to lose. China would probably ignore the summons anyway, and Japan would come out of it looking even more like the responsible party that they are on this issue.
http://www.google.com/profiles/havill Eido Inoue

“You can’t selectively pick sources and materials that support your position and then call yourself honest. ”

Sure you can, if you back up your arguments and explain why you picked one over the other. Those who are not chronologically or historically challenged know that when an event occurs and who does it matters. Does a late 20th century map, written after the establishment of the modern government of China and the modern government of Japan, matter more than that 13th century map, which is full of obsolete borders and territory markers? Yes, it does.

“I’m not interested in debating whether or not Zhenbao should be returned.”

I brought up Zhenbao not because I was interested in debating it, but rather because I was attempting to explain to you, via historical example (the Sino-Soviet border conflicts and bloodshed), than 1969 was a year when China was in fact VERY interested and concerned about its borders. Therefore your previous attempt to dismiss the 1969 map borders, before your silly Ishihara/LDP* non sequitur, as being the product of a chaotic time, is not logical.

“Either all Chinese sources are to be believed or they can’t.”

Do you realize you just changed your position? Suffer from cognitive dissonance much?

* silly because neither is the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs
George

“You can’t selectively pick sources and materials that support your position and then call yourself honest. Either all Chinese sources are to be believed or they can’t.”

This makes no sense. Some sources might be reliable (created before there was a motive to falsify the document) and some sources might not be reliable (created after there was a motive to falsify the document). Are you insisting on grouping all documents together despite knowing that?

Imagine if I told you “all US documents are to be believed or they can’t.” It’s an absurd position.
ij487i

“Interesting…Chinese official sources and citations supposedly can’t be trusted, but when an official 1960’s Chinese map that shows Diaoyudao as Japanese territory, or when an old People’s Daily article lists it as Japanese territory, then they suddenly can be trusted?”

You pretty much summed up the logic of Japanese nationalists: pick and choose “evidence” that supports their arguments, and make exceptions to the “Communists can’t be trusted” rule when it’s convenient.

In fact, the entirety of the historical revisionism/denial movement of the past and present is predicated on the convenient fact that every single one of the eyewitnesses present in China in 1937- be they Chinese, Western, or ex-Japanese soldiers- are somehow connected to some Communist conspiracy to taint the image of Japan and therefore untrustworthy. The ex-soldiers were brainwashed by the Communists, John Rabe was a Communist sympathizer, and the victims are actually actors paid by the CCP. Not to mention the photographic evidence was photoshopped by the Commies.

But when the revisionists point to the fact that Mao never mentioned the atrocities as proof they didn’t exist, or that the population was only 200000 according to (Chinese) records, suddenly Chinese sources are reliable during those particular instances in time because, heck, they prove their point.

Kind of like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O3Twk41L3s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l9axzmU7o4&feature=channel
ponta

ij487i

Are we talking about Nanjing massacre?

“Q8: What is the view of the Government of Japan on the incident known as the “Nanjing Massacre”?

The Government of Japan believes that it cannot be denied that following the entrance of the Japanese Army into Nanjing in 1937, the killing of a large number of noncombatants, looting and other acts occurred.”
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/q_a/faq16.html#q8

I wonder how it is related to to the topic.

Snapple

If it was the worst year of the Cultural Revolution, wouldn’t it make more sense for government officials to in the very least acknowledge that they have more land? I don’t see why they would purposely leave the fact out unless they were trying to appease Japan. I’m saying so because it seems like more land is considered good the world over. >->

Hamachiman

The pathetic thing is, many Chinese citizens will read things like these, and refuse to understand that it’s their own actions that are causing this distrust. So they amp up the hatred even more.

Moronic.

D2

Actually, I think many Chinese citizens are just blinded by their hatred by Japan’s many atrocities in WW2. You would be biased too if the Japanese slaughtered your ancestors or performed biological experiments on them.

ij487i

It’s not so much that the atrocities happened (for the victims at least), but rather the fact that

1) The J-government hasn’t specifically offered an apology for Nxnking and the biological experiments
2) There is a sizable number of influential politicians and ordinary conservatives that deny what happened
3) History courses don’t go into much detail about what happened, so what you end up with is the ironic situation where revisionists present the atrocities (their version of it) in far more detail and with more “analysis” than the watered down official version that students learn in school. Unfortunately, that just makes the revisionist interpretation all the more convincing. Since I’m sure the texts don’t include any condemning pictures, for instance, the only photographic evidence students will likely see is that which the right wing claims is false…and you get the point.

That’s a bigger slap in the face for the victims; they just want closure, but I don’t think the Japanese government will offer that anytime soon.

ponta

ij487i

So how many Chinese people admit the atrocities in Tibet etc happened?
And how many times do you think Chinese government should apologize to them?

ij487i, sorry, you can’t play history card. As the government says,

“Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly to those of Asian nations, and holds a firm resolve to never repeat war again and to advance the path of a peaceful nation with feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology always engraved in mind.”

Let’s face it.

Japan has been a peaceful non-expansionist nation after WW2

It is China that has been an expansionist after WW2.
D2

you can’t compare Tibet with WW2.

The Japanese just slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Chinese for sport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Contest_To_Cut_Down_100_People.jpg

“Japan has been a peaceful non-expansionist nation after WW2″

Doesn’t matter, they were ruthless killers before. They have own up to the fact that someday, people will want revenge.

Sorry Ponta, what comes around goes around. They should’ve thought about the repercussions of their actions.
ij487i

“So how many Chinese people admit the atrocities in Tibet etc happened?”

Ponta, I don’t know why you would change the topic to the Tibet atrocities, for which I agree an apology is necessary. But by saying that China hasn’t apologized as a response to why Japan hasn’t apologized, you’re both avoiding the issue and holding Japan to the standard of a Communist country. China I wouldn’t hope for much from, but as an industrialized democracy and “responsible” power you’d expect Japan to at least face their history squarely.

“And how many times do you think Chinese government should apologize to them?”

At least once, but if I were Tibetan I’d expect it to be sincere and in the least vague terms possible. If the Japanese government’s view of Nanjing is that it can’t be denied, then why would they refuse a specific apology such as the one given for the Korean colonization? Why fire history teachers who go into detail about the atrocities?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1122/p01s04-woap.html

My guess is that the J-government wants to keep the issue as silent to the public as possible, to censor the truth. Some democracy, huh?

“I wonder how it is related to to the topic.”

It was in response to MF DULER’s earlier comment about the Japanese picking and choosing which Chinese sources are reliable or not regarding the Senkaku issue. The only sources they deem reliable are the 1960s Chinese map and People’s Daily article that shows as Japanese territory, to fit their arguments. Meaning that in every other instance, Chinese maps and People’s Daily articles are untrustworthy, which I related to the history issue.
http://www.japanprobe.com James

But by saying that China hasn’t apologized as a response to why Japan hasn’t apologized, you’re both avoiding the issue and holding Japan to the standard of a Communist country.

Japan has apologized.

If the Japanese government’s view of Nanjing is that it can’t be denied, then why would they refuse a specific apology such as the one given for the Korean colonization?

Japan’s apology to Korea was hardly more specific than the apologies it has made to China. I think you’ll find that some of your Korean counterparts make the same arguments about how Japanese apologies to Korea haven’t been “specific” enough.

Why fire history teachers who go into detail about the atrocities?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1122/p01s04-woap.html

That teacher wasn’t fired for “going into detail about the atrocities.” She used her authority as teacher to have her students write a letter to a foreign government condemning the actions of a Japanese politician. She used those children as pawns in a political grudge. Even if the politicians remarks were wrong, that teacher committed a grave abuse.

The only sources they deem reliable are the 1960s Chinese map and People’s Daily article that shows as Japanese territory, to fit their arguments. Meaning that in every other instance, Chinese maps and People’s Daily articles are untrustworthy, which I related to the history issue.

As Eido already pointed out, it’s perfectly fine to accept some Chinese documents at face value while dismissing others as untruthful. If you’ve got a good explanation for why a news article in a state-controlled paper and map produced by the Chinese government marked the islands as Japanese, you’re welcome to provide it. If the map and articles were simply mistakes – a few examples that “nationalists” in Japan cherry-picked, there should be plenty of other maps and news articles written during the same period stating that the islands are Chinese territory that has been illegally occupied.

You do have a point about certain Japanese nationalists, though. Some of them will trust almost any story that makes China look bad. They are able to correctly identify and dismiss certain exaggerated or fabricated accounts of Japanese wartime atrocities, while at the same time accepting as truth any equally dubious accounts provided by Free Tibet or Uighur activists. When anti-China people inflate Chinese atrocities in Tibet to unrealistic levels, it gives Chinese nationalists an excuse to dismiss the whole issue. When anti-Japanese people inflate Japanese atrocities in China to unrealistic levels, it gives Japanese nationalists an excuse to dismiss the whole issue.
ponta

”Ponta, I don’t know why you would change the topic ”

The same to you. I didn’t understand why you changed the topic.

” if I were Tibetan I’d expect it to be sincere and in the least vague terms possible.”

What would happen if some Chinese conservative deny the atrocity?

”
then why would they refuse a specific apology such as the one given for the Korean colonization? ”

Sigh. How many times do you want apology from Japan?

“My guess is that the J-government wants to keep the issue as silent to the public as possible, to censor the truth. Some democracy,”

Your guess is most likely to be wrong. Japan just wants to move forward.

And a teacher in question was not disciplined for telling the truth, but she was disciplined for violating human right.

増田都子
被処分歴 [編集]

1999年11月人権侵害事件で「減給10分の1　1ヶ月」
2000年7月信用失墜行為で「減給10分の1　1ヶ月」
2000年9月都立教育研究所での研修を命令
2001年4月再研修を命令
2002年4月再々研修を命令
2005年8月信用失墜行為で戒告処分
2005年9月千代田区立教育研究所での研修を命令
2005年9月東京都教職員研修センターでの研修を命令（上記の延長）
2006年3月分限免職

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A2%97%E7%94%B0%E9%83%BD%E5%AD%90

” Chinese maps and People’s Daily articles are untrustworthy, which I related to the history issue.”

By the same　token I related your comment to China’s attitude toward the atrocities she committed.
But neither stories, yours nor mine, have little to do with the topic here.
ij487i

Ponta (and James):

I think I raised this point before, but what I mean by an apology for Nanjing would be just that- one specific to the incident itself and directed toward the survivors (just as Japan thought it fit to address the Bataan Death march survivors specifically instead of using blanket statements like war damages to skirt the issue). It just seems inconsistent not to do the same for the Nanjing survivors, and a glaring omission to avoid mentioning Nanjing if they’re trying to claim that they already apologized for it.

Anyhow that’s my take on it; makes sense that if X country wants to apologize about Y then obviously they’d want to include Y itself in the apology. Not to solely demonize Japan, but since this is Japan Probe and the topic is bilateral relations and public opinion, well the history issue is quite relevant. Even though China does play the history card often, it is ultimately up to Japan to do its part and make the final step (an apology that addresses the issue squarely) so that China has no more excuse not to bury the card. Of course, if the survivors die off before that happens Japan will have missed that opportunity.

“Sigh. How many times do you want apology from Japan?”

Just once. A straightforward apology for Nanjing would be nice. If you read my comment you’ll have understood what I mean by that.

“And a teacher in question was not disciplined for telling the truth, but she was disciplined for violating human right.”

Whether that was the primary motive over her teaching of masochistic history is debatable, but I’ll take your (and Wikipedia’s) word for it.
ponta

ij487i

I personally think Japan should not hesitate to apologize.
But many Japanese people are concerned that there is no end to the apology because as you point out, “China does play the history card often.”

Look at the comment above.

Comment by D2
2010-11-09 13:09:36
you can’t compare Tibet with WW2.

The Japanese just slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Chinese for sport.

“Japan has been a peaceful non-expansionist nation after WW2″

Doesn’t matter, they were ruthless killers before. They have own up to the fact that someday, people will want revenge.

Sorry Ponta, what comes around goes around. They should’ve thought about the repercussions of their actions.

History and apology are not used for future friendship but are used to cover up and strengthen Chinese expansionism.

No?
Fat Tony

“If the map and articles were simply mistakes – a few examples that “nationalists” in Japan cherry-picked, there should be plenty of other maps and news articles written during the same period stating that the islands are Chinese territory that has been illegally occupied.”

That’s actually not a bad point. Can anyone find a map that was produced in post-revolution (or even post 1911) China that had the Senkaku islands marked as Chinese territory?

And not to inflame the Chinese nationalists out there, but hasn’t the 100 man killing contest pretty much been debunked as propaganda by Japanese newspaper editors?

http://www.jstor.org/stable/133271

Rizon

Both sides knew there were Legal Implications to Japan’s action with serious consequences for the territorial question.

First, you must know that there exists a “Sino-Japanese Fisheries Agreement of 1997″, under which the appropriate course of action should have been prompt deportation of the Chinese skipper and crew to the Chinese authorities and the demand for some penance. Instead, Japan revoked its own obligations, Maehara demanded arrest and trial of the skipper under DOMESTIC LAW, as if there is no question of territorial dispue, while the 1997 Agreement is signed under the understanding that there IS a dispute.

Under laws governing claims of territorial rights, if China lets Japan proceed with the trial, it is recognizing Japan’s right to treat the islands as Japanese territory. Maehara knows that as well, which is why he departed from the AGREED protocol of dealing with such cases, as he wants to set a legal precedent that would make the islands de facto Japan’s. Japan’s actions of building the lighthouse, aggressive patrol boats, sinking Taiwanese ships, etc., are far more nationalistic and assertive than any from either China or Taiwan.

That was a serious challenge from Japan. If China didn’t respond in the strongest possible manner, both Taiwan and PRC will lose their claims if they were put before an international court in future.

It is about Strategies, but definitely, after following the 1997 Agreement for years, this is an attempt from Japan’s part to change the Status Quo.

Unfortunately, the rise of Maehara after years of rapprochement between the two countries signals a rocky road ahead for both neighbors. Something has changed within Japanese politics. I think this is what Obama meant about turning US attention back to the Asia-Pacific region.

http://www.japanprobe.com James

When I look at the text of the 1997 fisheries agreement (Agreement Between Japan and China Concerning Fisheries) article 7 defines provisional areas of the sea. However, those areas are limited to North Latitude 27 degrees and further North. The Senkaku Islands territorial sea located between North Latitude 25 and 26 is not included within the provisional areas of the sea. The North Latitude 27 line is about 100 kilometers North of the Senkaku Islands, and the exclusive economic waters near the islands (a radius of 200 nautical miles = 370 kilometers) to the north of this area is included in the provisional areas of the sea where Chinese and Japanese boats can operate freely. However, the sea around the Senkakus, where the Coast Guard captured a Chinese boat is outside the provisional areas of the sea.

The East China Sea, north of North Latitude 27 degrees around the Senkaku Islands, to begin with, is outside the area specified in the 1997 Japan-China Fisheries Agreement; it is in the area excluded in Article 6 (b). Before 1997, fisheries agreements between China and Japan were concluded, for instance in 1955 and 1965. (This was before establishment of diplomatic relations, so it was a civil agreement.) In neither case is the area north of North Latitude 27 a target of the agreement. In other words there is no Japan-China fisheries agreement concerning the vicinity of the Senkaku Islands.

http://www.fpif.org/articles/rekindling_china-japan_conflict

The author of that article concludes that the Japanese government “broke” another agreement made between China and a past LDP government – an informal agreement that the DPJ government was not fully aware of. However, from what I’ve read, that agreement was about both sides preventing nationalists from landing on the islands. It apparently did not apply to cases of ramming and assault.

The status quo for years has been: in vicinity of the Senkakus, Japanese coast guard maintain effective control. When Chinese fishing boats enter the area, the coast guard is summoned and chases them away. The status quo was broken in September when a Chinese trawler captain decided to ram Japanese ships.

If China didn’t respond in the strongest possible manner, both Taiwan and PRC will lose their claims if they were put before an international court in future.

Total nonsense. They could have issued a public statement saying they disagreed with Japan’s actions and considered the area to be Chinese territory and sent official messages of protest to the Japanese government.

China’s extreme actions in this case only served to remind the world that the PRC does not follow to the established norms of peaceful and reasonable diplomatic conflict resolution.
ponta

“First, you must know that there exists a “Sino-Japanese Fisheries Agreement of 1997″, under which the appropriate course of action should have been prompt deportation of the Chinese skipper and crew to the Chinese authorities and the demand for some penance.”

Well, first you must know “the fisheries agreement between Japan and China does not permit “both sides’ fishermen to operate free of regulation around the islands. Rather, the agreement is only applicable to the Exclusive Economic Zone. The Chinese boat clashed against Japanese patrol vessels within Japan’s territorial waters, in clear violation of relevant Japanese laws.”(Satoru Sato Press Secretary Letter to the Editor: Clarifying the Senkaku Islands Dispute – WSJ. 30 Sep 2010 )

“I think this is what Obama meant about turning US attention back to the Asia-Pacific region.”

In another sense I agree with you.

7 November 2010(BBC)
US seeks to expand military presence in Asia

8 November 2010(BBC)
Obama backs India on permanent UN Security Council seat

“Since the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949, the frequency of its use of military forces reaches the double digits. On average, China has used military power every several years. In all cases, except for its support of North Vietnam war against South Vietnam, China has used force preemptively. China attacked the opponent first after careful preparation, whereas the opponent suffered from a surprise attack.”

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.192/pub_detail.asp

Considering Chinese frequent use of military forces after WW2 and the recent tantrums in diplomacy, the US move is not without reasons.

Rizon

First of all, everyone, except perhaps the naive Japanese public, is aware of the geopolitical gambit behind the whole “incident”.

A well-known China Hawk, Maehara, was able to use his position as Minister with a portfolio that covers the Coast Guard to abrogate on the 1997 Sino-Japan Fisheries Agreement (that govern such incidents to prevent a brinkmanship situation), to create SERIOUS TROUBLE for Sino-Japan relations and directly escalate Japan’s Claims over the islands. For his sabotage efforts, he was rewarded the position of Foreign Minister. Guess WHOM could be behind this upstart Maehara? Naoto Kan? Someone scored in this sabotage of ties, an intention all along.

Sorry, China plays chess with much bigger players, Maehara is only a pawn. Ok, now promoted to a knight. The Nationalists are pawns. The degree of ruthlessness and aggression played against China by its rivals is an indication of her strength and their increased desperation.

Seems like the Japanese are even unaware that such a Fisheries Agreement exists. They are also unaware of what their politicians do to the interests of their country.

At least on Youtube, you can find commentators who debate this in Chinese at this level on public TV and in newspapers, instead of the blind Nationalist/kindergarten level among the muzzled media in Japan. The biggest mystery is an “olive branch” from Obama at the beginning of this conflict, signaling this is a matter between the two nations, and US does not take sides, and then more hawkish statements followed from Clinton and the Pentagon. So they were debating if Japan wagged the American Dog or Maehara is the pawn. Most of course think that Japan doesn’t make a big self-sabotaging move like this without being directed.

The “allies” that Japan manage to round up on behalf of their biggest partner (think Hillary Clinton faction instead of Obama faction) are only temporary and milking the situation for whatever it is worth, eg. getting Japanese companies to help them develop rare earth mines and production.

Think how this endangers Japanese high tech industries – they have to transfer technology and invest massively into infrastructure in these emerging nations who also need this same rare earth materials for themselves instead of purchasing directly from an available, immediate source, China, delivered right away to Japan.

Anyway, China has WISELY decided since 2006 to limit their rare earth exports. I guess there are many other countries eager to snap up available rare earth supplies from China once Japan gives up its “quota” of Chinese rare earth, including USA.

China can buy from many sources other than Japan for many of its needs, eg. machinery from Germany and US, generating jobs for their economies. China trades massively with Japan as they want to maintain a stable relationship – Japan is China’s neighbor and it is better to be friendly for both sides and for Japan to have some benefits, i.e. carrots. I read somewhere that Japan has stockpiled some 20 years of rare earth from China, and US business can ask Japan to “share” as Chinese rare earth exports slow dramatically. It’s not for some great love for Japan, also vice-versa, it’s just pragmatism as neighbors. While the US was bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, it left China and Japan to conduct their relations as per normal. Of course since Obama said he would turn his attention “back to the Asian-Pacific region”, it signals US’s alarm at Asian rapprochement and being shut out from this vibrant SURPLUS production region and its wealth. This is only a signal that the Americans are “back in business”.

This is just ONE scenario, I won’t even go into the MULTITUDES of other financial, economic and political interests that are harmed as Japan severs its friendly ties to China built up by the past Japanese government.

At the end of the day, regional governments are smarter than you think. Of course they will take advantage of the situation, especially of Japanese business concerns, but they can always do a turnaround anytime when their interests demand it, especially trade with China. Most countries always act in their own interests. Some, unfortunately, aren’t able to.

I suspect that even now, there are some serious strategic fights within Japan.

Good job Japan!

ponta

“Maehara is only a pawn”

Well put. (But keep in mind it is Maehara (and Sengoku) who released the Chinese captain.

“At least on Youtube, you can find commentators who debate this in Chinese at this level on public TV and in newspapers,

Wow, is youtube open to Chinese public now?

“The “allies” that Japan manage to round up on behalf of their biggest partner (think Hillary Clinton faction instead of Obama faction”

Obama faction along with Clinton faction seem to line up allies.

Taking Harder Stance Toward China, Obama Lines Up Allies
By MARK LANDLER and SEWELL CHAN
Published: October 25, 2010 (NYT)

“China can buy from many sources other than Japan for many of its needs,”

Don’t worry about Japan, worry about the oppressed people in China.They may topple your government at anytime.

“Japan is China’s neighbor and it is better to be friendly for both sides and for Japan to have some benefits”

Japan has always been friendly to China since WW2, she still is. Tell your government to stop tantrums and promote democracy and give power to the people. Then Japan (and the U.S. for that matter) will be friendlier and we can live peacefully together.
Not in China

> “At least on Youtube, you can find commentators who debate this in Chinese at this level on public TV and in newspapers, instead of the blind Nationalist/kindergarten level among the muzzled media in Japan.”

It’s funny when people try to claim that the press is more free, civil and open in state-controlled communist-totalitarian regimes than democracies. China is a internet society whose censorship is so strict its netizens routinely communicate in code and euphemism double-speak just to make blog comments post.

Here’s a fun little experiment: using a reverse-proxy to make it look like you’re inside China (ex. greatfirewallofchina.org), go to any search engine, BBS, blog, etc. Now try submitting anything that the PRC gets nervous about. (ex. “Tibet / 西藏, Tienanmen Square / 六四事件, Republic of Taiwan / 中華民國, Falun Gong / 法轮功” in Chinese). Good luck finding those Japan Coast Guard videos in the PRC! If you’ve seen them or have access to any or the bourgeoisie elite media like Facebook or Twitter, it means you’re part of the ex-pat or tech elite and probably have access to a corporate VPN or proxy tunnel to America or Japan.

Youtube has been 100% blocked by China since March 2009:
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/traffic/
(select “China” and “Youtube”, then select “Max”)

ebisumascats

> “Good luck finding those Japan Coast Guard videos in the PRC! ”
Those video has been up there since the first day when the original videos leaked on youtube
no image flipping, no code, no euphemism double-speak..
http://www.56.com/u45/v_NTYyODkyMzQ.html
http://www.56.com/u78/v_NTYyODkyNjc.html

LOD

“Seems like the Japanese are even unaware that such a Fisheries Agreement exists.”

It can’t be helped, since the treaty is NOT about Senkaku.

“China trades massively with Japan as they want to maintain a stable relationship”

If China wants to maitain a stable relationship, she should reflect what she has done to Japan so far. You may want to read the above Japan Probe article again.

hydrt

Because I regulate information, in China, the global community does not know true China

Distrust of China Soars: 87% Consider China Untrustworthy

Recent Comments

Further Reading

Bikini Atoll: Lessons For Fukushima?

Complaints From Loony Parents Cancel Event: Okinawan Children Not Allowed to Play With “Radioactive” Aomori Snow

Remembering the International Media’s Post-Fukushima Hysteria: Radiation Scare Stories Ignored Real Victims of 3/11

A Look Inside Osaka Prison

Dead Shark Found in Yoyogi Park

Japanese Fart Battle Scroll

Dinosaurs Wear Traditional Japanese Clothing

Canada Rejects Refugee Application From Japanese Who Feared Radiation

Ishinomaki: Then & Now

Radioactive Seafood? Miyagi Fishing Industry Works to Prove Safety of Their Fish

Categories

Archives

Subscribe

Japan Blogs

Korea Blogs

Linkroll

Other Asia Blogs