the undersigned, strongly urge you to speak out and vote against any motion or procedure to grant Japan the status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council . As the aggressor in World War II, Japan committed numerous atrocities in its neighboring countries, and destroyed and looted an astronomical amount of properties. Recent discoveries have revealed its systematic slaughtering of prisoners of war and tens of millions of innocent civilians, from newborn to elderly, during those years. Its government and parliament have never formally acknowledged its wrongdoing, offered official apologies to those who suffered immensely, or provided adequate reparation to compensate its victims, including the hundreds of thousands women forced into sexual slavery, nearly a million died in its biochemical experimentations and battlefield deployments in violation of the Geneva Convention, or the Allied prisoners of war butchered, brutalized and enslaved. Japan thus far shows no remorse of its past misdeeds, refuses to repent, and appears to be untrustworthy. The international community can not and must not designate such state to seat on the Security Council which is chartered to safeguard and maintain regional and world peace and justice.

http://alpha-la.org/petition.asp

1. China will veto Japan. Period. Is there even a doubt about that?

Official position from Beijing: China opposes Japan's bid for UN Security Council permanent member

6.1 million people had signed the Sina Corp. petition opposing Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council...

More than ten million online oppose Japan's UN campaign

16 mil, mainly in China, sign online to oppose Japan's Security Council bid

By the way, this petition is on track to become the largest, ever, in human history.

2. If there is a country that deserves a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, it is India, not Japan. India has the world's oldest civilization and largest democracy. It is also a rising industrial power. Plus, the South Asia region currently does not have a permanent representative on the UN Security Council. India should be that representative.

Japan should not be in the Security Council permanent seats before India. In fact, Japan should not get a permenent seats before India and a South American country. (In time, Africa should also get a permenent UN Security Council seat to represent that region, if and when a single African nation can get its acts together. I do not see that happening in the foreseeable future.)

3. Unfortunately, Japan has acted as an America's lapdog on most any global issue. If Japan is given a permanent veto power on the UN Security Council with veto power, it will be voting for the interests of the U.S. When was the last time Japan voted against the U.S. in anything? Japan will not represent Asian interests on the Security Council. It will merely serve as an an extension of Amerian interest in Asia.

Bush has not been able to get his way with the UN, so he wants to use Japan to expand America's power in the UN Security Council. That is why the U.S. is so anxious to appoint Japan into the UN Security Council. So, Russia and France (two other permanent members that, along with China, regulate and counter U.S. on the UN Security Council) should also veto Japan on the ground that Japan's bid is just America's attempt to expand America's power in UN.

4. Finally, apology or not, Japan will have to satisfactory resolve its World War II war crime issues with other Asian nations before Japan is given a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. The issues cannot be left in limbo before Japan is rewarded with a seat on the Council.

christ what country hasn't commited atrocities....I support them myself. China's opinion doesnt matter much to me. if anything.

So true.

I'm sure it does not. However, America's opinion doesn't matter much to China and most Chinese either, if anything.

Sure, all countries commit atrocities. The point here is not whether every other country has committed its shares of atrocities. The key issue here is Japan has refused to even admit anything wrong has happened in WWII. German and Vatican have admitted their wrongdoings against Jews in WWII. America has admitted its past wrongdoings on slavery. However, Japan refuses to apologize or even admit any wrongdoing. Japan flat out denies its atrocities in WWII. Japan even refuses to teach the truth about WWII in their history classes and books. That is deeply troubling. As long as Japan refuses to admit wrongdoings and apology, there will be no "moving on". An apology from the is the first step for other countries to "move on".

A country that does not recognize its past mistakes does not learn from the mistakes. Therefore, it is bound to make the same mistakes again. On that basis alone, Japan should not be admitted into the UN Security Council on a permanent basis. I just hope when the time comes for UN to vote for Japan's permanent entry into the Security Council, China will follow through and veto the bid.

Are you Japanese? Other than Japanese, just about all other Asians, who have been on the receiving end of Japan's brutality, should take issue with Japan's refusal to admit wrongdoing in WWII.

(Frankly, I'm more pissed when people--especially American, White, Latin or Black people who do not know much about Asian history--now think of Japan as a "peaceful" country or the "most peaceful" people in the world. Gimme a break. This must be the biggest injustice. This is the kind of crap that happens when we allow the perpetrator to get away scot free. And now we're supposed to reward that kind of action with a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.)

By the way, out of respect for the people in here, I do not think this thread belong in the Japanese chat. This discussion belongs in either the Chinese or Korean chat, or both.

^No he's not japanese LOL

I don’t think the government will apologize. It is just not going to happen, at least not any time soon.

Edit: I have to take back what I said. Here's a list of War apology statements issued by Japan

I know. That's why I think Japan must not be allowed into the UN Security Council permanently either. Not until Japan and other Asian nations reach a resolution on WWII, which was the reason UN was founded in the first place.

To put it bluntly, western politics wouldn't give a thought to whatever atrocities were committed in Asia 50 years ago, very clearly due to racism.

Or maybe it’s simply due to being unsympathetic or not being beneficial to their cause.

^indeed, their points of view are isolated from any emphasis or signifance in asian history. (of course I'm generalising here)

Jareth has a very good point , and I can tell you right now that the people of China doesn't hate Japan for no reason. Basically Japan is still insulting and humiliating China still till this day by not admiting , and misteaching for the unhumane brutal massacres and mass rapes . And it isn't just China that knows these things , Koreans , Filipinos as well shared a great deal of unnecessary suffering. I read in an article that a Nazi even was shocked by what the japanese did in Nanking , so that gives you a idea of how bad things were.

All the permanent members of the UN Security Council are the victors of WW2. Not even Germany is a permanent member of the Security Council. If Japan did get a permanent seat on the Council Germany will be the next to ask for it. The only reason Germany isn’t a permanent member of the council is that they committed many atrocities during WW2 and they are ashamed even now to ask for a permanent seat on the council. I guess Japan have no scruples. Japan feels perfectly at peace with what they did during WW2. The act of asking a seat on the council proves that they will never apologize. For all the country in Asia that has suffered at the hands of Japan, they should just stop dreaming and face the facts that eventually the world will forget what Japan did during WW2. The bigger the lie the easier it is for people to believe.

does china and korea have a permanent membership yet?

China has a permanent seat

China has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, but not Korea. It is very unlikely that Korea will ever gain a permanent seat. Personally, I think the idea of giving UNSC permanent status to any nation is most ridiculous.

However, if UN has to install permanent members for its Security Council, UN should give one seat each to East Asia (China), South Asia (India), Europe (EU, rotating permanent membership), North America (USA), South America, Africa, Middle East (excluding Israel). Russia, which is neither completely Europe nor Asia, should get one seat as well. South America, Africa and Middle East should ultimately get one seat each, but not right now because they have not gotten their act together. As an incentive to encourage South America, Africa and Middle East to develop economic and political stability, UN should award the permanent memberships to the first nation from each region to reach prosperity and stability. The Security Council should be a fair and balanced representation of global interests.

Japan should definitely not get a permenent seat because it has too much unresolved issues and bitterness with other neighboring nations. I also think Japan has a very good likelihood of slipping back to its former imperialistic and expansionistic attitude again. As I have just noted in the Korean Chat:





No surprise there. Japan denies the past, so it has not learned from its past mistakes. Japan has already started flexing muscles and staking claims on other people's lands, just as it had prior to WWII. This is a precursor for Japan to ultimately use its military to "reclaim" the island, which Japan claims is legitimately Japan's. If Japan gains a permanent seat on UN Security Council, it will be able to veto any international action against Japan's future aggression when Japan is ready to "take back" what it claims is rightfully and legally Japan's.

Very dangerous indeed.

It really wouldn't suprise me that japan has a militaristic imperial agenda, and are working towards it.

A few things that could be taken into account : Japan's presence in Iraq , Koizumi's insistence on visiting Yasukuni Shrine,claims of Chinese territory ,and request for UN security seat.

Japan is becoming ever more aggressive in snatching territories from China, Korea and other East Asian nations. Japan have repeatedly and unilaterally send troops or agents to and built illegal outposts on some disputed islands--even as negotiations had been going on between China/Korea and Japan to work out peaceful solutions. China and Korea held off unilateral actions to honor the negotiations. Japan did not.

Japan has shown that it does not really negotiate. Negotiation is just a pretense. Japan takes what it wants, through force. Here are some samples of Japan's increasing aggressiveness:

Japan's action on island lighthouse "illegal'

Korea-Japan dispute strains longstanding alliances

S Korea protest over Japan claim

Kurile Island conflict - Dispute Between Russia and Japan over Sovereignty of Islands

Japan, Russia 'completely opposite' on isle dispute

Why the hell is Japan having so many high-profile territory disputes with so many of its neighbors? As far as I know, Chinese, Koreans and Russians are not threatening and cursing at each other over claims on territories.

Here is a historical tidbit: a few decades before WWII, Japan started having territorial disputes with exactly the same group of nations--Russia, Korea, China, and South East Asia. In the end, Japan resorted to using violence and war to bring an end to the disputes. And now, history seems to be repeating itself. Scary, huh?

funny how there are no Japanese replying trying to defend their country's honor. LOL

Regardless of its past actions during WW2, modern Japan still isn't qualified to be a UNSC member. How can we expect a nation to be responsible as a world player and to keep the peace when it can't even do something as simple as admiting its wrongdoings or try to settle the dokdo island issue without resorting to military threats to its own ally?

For those who don't know about dokdo issue, a high ranking Japanese official made a remark that they would take dokdo by force if necessary, and their JSDF had trained on Iwo Jima in a mock Japanese amphibious invasion of dokdo, 'pretending' to fight South Korean coast guards. Does anyone honestly expects that countries like China and Korea would trust Japan after its recent behavior? For christ sake, Japan made a militaristic remark and a "show of force" (thats put in paranthesis because anyone who has an inkling of the military capabilities btw the two countries knows how ridiculously weak Japan's ground forces are) directed at South Korea, its OWN ALLY! If Japan wants to be a permanent member of the UNSC, then they should first make attempts to prove that they are a trustworthy neighbor instead of whitewashing their embarrassments from its Imperial era and stop b!tching about an island that isn't theirs when we both have more pressing issues to be concerned about mainly North Korea.

Snatching territories? Seems to be a bit of an exaggeration.


Illegal outpost? That depends on which side you are talking too after all they are “disputed islands”. And besides on the Senkaku Islands where has the Japanese government sent troops or agents to and built illegal outposts on?


Well they are arguing with Japan, isn’t Japan their neighbor?


Japan is not going to go to war.

Here is a historical tidbit: Disputes over these islands have been going on for a long time. They are nothing new. At one point in time Japan had come in to control of all these islands with out so much of the "use of violence or war". The islands that are being disputed with China and Korea are uninhabitable. They are mainly just a bunch of rocks. The only islands that had been inhabitant were those in which are being disputed with Russia.

These disputes are really a separate issue of whether Japan should have a permanent UNSC seat. Well, that’s saying if you are not a politician or a nationalist who’s concerned over increasing their territories. All the hoopla now about Japan being a “big evil nation” is mainly propaganda.


Questions for you,
1) Who was this high Japanese official and what remark did he make exactly?

2) When did the JSDF train for the mock Japanese amphibious invasion of Doko on Iwo Jima?

I am just curious because your statements reminds me of something else,
1) South Korea's Foreign Ministry warned Japan "Our government (Korea) will take all necessary measures, and we clearly state that the Japanese side will be held responsible for the situation in the future". This was in response to the Shimane Prefecture’s (which does not control all of Japan) announcement of “Takeshima Day”. They only wanted to have a party. 2

2) February 19, 2005 marked the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima. It was one of the fiercest battles of WWII in which US. Marines conducted and “amphibious assault” on the island. In commemoration of this day the US Armed forces staged a “mock invasion of the Battle of Iwo Jima”.

Sending troops to occupy disputed islands (i.e., isn't Japan supposed to be "principally" against sending military outside of Japan or something?) and building research facility and lighthouse on disputed lands, while Japan was supposed to engage in an ongoing negotiations with China and Korea, while China and Korea were showing good faith and holding back from the same unilateral actions to honor the negotiation process with Japan, were Japan's blatant display of 'snatching territories'. What else would you call that?



It is illegal because the territories were in dispute, which mean Japan could 'possibly' be illegally occupying China's or Korea's lands (and I am giving Japan the benefit of the doubt.) China and Korea could have resorted to using the same tactics to undermine Japan's claims. There is no doubt that China has the military strength to take over the islands by force, to ignore the ongoing negotiation with Japan and just send in troops and build outposts on those places to secure China's claims. But China has not done that. Japan has. China and Korea have shown good faith during the negotiation process. Japan has not.

China and Korea recognize that the islands were in dispute, so they have held back from unilateral aggressions and respect the negotiation process with Japan. Japan certainly does not seem to respect the process. Japan pretended that it would negotiate, and then it took the sneaky actions, send its troops and built outposts to secure its claims. What the heck was that? Of course Chinese and Koreans are mightily pissed.

Is that sort of unilateral, aggressive, sneaky, backstabbing action even defensible?

Just so you know, if Japan was not going to honor the negotiation process, China and Korea should be doing exactly the same thing to Japan. Why should China and Korea show any good faith to Japan when Japan has already broken the rule of engagement? Especially given what Japan had done in the past and still refuses to admit. It seems like Japan is slipping back to its bad habit again.



My last message gave another example in which Japan preemptively and unilaterally built a lighthouse on a disputed island, showing extreme bad faith for the negotiation process with China. Heck, that was the first external link in my previous message, and item1702 seem to have simply ignored it. There was another high-profile case in which Japan just sent a research team and built a research outpost on another island, which was also being negotiated.

In fact, Japan has been doing the same crap over and over again. It has shown a clear pattern of behavior. It has consistently shown that it does not really want to negotiate. It takes what it wants, regardless of the process or outcome of negotiations.



China, Korea and Russia (three neighbors) are not arguing among themselves over the islands. Japan is arguing with ALL OF THEM, individually--China, Korea, and Russia, plus a few other minor Southeast Asian countries. However, China, Korea and Russia is not engaging in a bitter, ugly escalating disagreements with each other over territories. China, Korea and Russia have had territorial disputes, for sure. However, they ultimately behave like civilized nations and negotiate their way out of the disputes. Japan does not care for negotiation. The disputes with Japan are getting really bitter, really ugly. Maybe Japan thinks it should not have to negotiate with 'inferior' people. Who knows?

Let me give an analogy to show you who's right and who's wrong here. If you have four friends: A, B, C, and D. Let say A, B and C have their occassional disagreements, but they mostly get along and solve their disagreement in a civilized manner through talking. On the other hand, D has a habit of causing troubles and bitterness with A, B and C, separately. Who do you think is the problem?



I am not a prophet. I cannot foretell the future. I can only use the lessons of history to conjecture repeated patterns of human behaviors.

We shall see.



Um yeah, sure. All those other countries that had disputes with Japan had just decided, what the heck, let's all give in and hand over the territories to Japan, peacefully and quietly, because they liked Japan. That makes a lot of sense, yeah. Especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when everyone was just so much darn nicer and more civilized than we are now, and they just loved to talk their ways out of everything. Geez. We must have studied different versions of world history.

Yet another denial about past violences and wars. Yet another spin. That is so typical.



If those "islands" are just crops of rocks, why is Japan so anxious to use troops and buildings to secure claims? Japan is going after the rich natural resources surrounding those islands.



Puhlease. Japan mixes and mingles separate issues together all the time. Japan had threaten to cut its UN funding if it does not get its permanent UNSC seat in September. So I suppose Japan thinks permanent UNSC seats are for sale. (And those are separate issues. I know some people are going to spin and say they are not. Whatever.)

Also, WWII was the reason the UN and UNSC were founded. Yet, until today, Japan still refuses to resolve its WWII issues. WWII created UNSC. UNSC and the WWII issues are definitely NOT separate issues.

Anyway, since China has the power to veto Japan's bid at the UN, it is really up to China to decide if those territory disputes should affect China's vote. Heck, the U.S. has been repeatedly and shamelessly using its veto power to block actions and condemns against Isreal, even when ALL other countries had agreed otherwise. China has been far too responsible and conservative with its veto power. (When was the last time China used its UN veto power, anyone?) It is about time for China to flex its veto muscle.



I have never said Japan was a "big evil nation". The U.S. deserves that official title. I just think Japan will have to face up with its unresolved WWII issues and settle the disputes with its neighbors before it is given a permanent seat in the UNSC. I suppose most Japanese believe Japan's atrocities and brutality in WWII are just imaginary propagandas. The permanent veto is too much power for an irresponsible nation who can use it to not negotiate and take unilateral actions during negotiations, which Japan has already shown it is quite willing to do.

I am not going to respond to the rest of item1702's message. I have just responded to the attack on my last message, not the one on YManchun's. He/she should be able to defend himself/herself.

Veto, veto, and veto.

there arent any japanese members here...there's like Ogumo who doesnt post anymore and Tami who is half Japanese half French. and i doubt she even cares whether they get a seat or not.

We had one Japanese and one half-Japanese in here?!? That's it?!?

Unfortunately, I think China will have to use its veto in September to stop Japan. The only other nation that opposes Japan's bid for UNSC permanent seat is South Korea, and South Korea does not have veto power.

Russia has veto power but will not use it. Russia, thanks to its failed democracy, is broken down like a pathetic beggar. Russians have 'freedom' but not enough money to buy foods to eat; Russian women are reduced to being bought and sold and whored for survival. Russia will yield to Japan in exchange for the much-needed economic assistance.

Right now, most nations support Japan's bid, because they have never been on the receiving end of Japan's inhumane atrocities and brutality in WWII, and because they have not experienced Japan's consistent bad faith in international matters.

Something that kind of caught my attention that I wanted to shrare , not like it's anything really important. I was watching some Japanese anime on cartoon network when in the anime a man was arguing with 2 others about something.


Man 1 : *speaks about how Japanese are wrong for causing so much blood shed in Manchuria and through out Foreign lands , and using the meiji era as an excuse to cause invasions*

Man 2: Well hasn't it made us better as people , It is only inevitable that a nation becomes great through expansion of territory.

Man 1 : Why so we can cause more bloodshed?

Man 2 & 3 : What kind of Japanese are you? Go the hell home.

China is almost certainly going to block Japan, so there's really no point to this.

Amidst everything Japan has been doing (and not been doing--see my last two messages in this thread,) Americans and Europeans think of Japanese as the 'most peaceful people on the planet'. Where the heck did they even get that idea?!? Gosh. Talk about the gravest injustice of mankind. I can only say that Japan knows how to market itself and rewrite history. Ah, the amazing power of good PR.

So you are telling me that you jealous or something?

"Japan ready to drill in disputed waters

By MAYUMI NEGISHI
Staff writer

Japan will prepare to grant exploratory drilling rights in disputed waters of the East China Sea adjacent to where China hopes to launch full-scale drilling for natural gas, industry minister Shoichi Nakagawa said Friday.

His comments came on the heels of an announcement that the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry has completed a geophysical survey that found that the two natural gas reserves China is currently developing extend into Japan's exclusive economic zone.

Unless Beijing releases data on the deposits it is tapping, Japan will conduct its own test drilling for oil and gas, he said.

The minister said: "We want China to suspend drilling. We have repeatedly and politely requested China to release data (on the reserves) so that we can seek a cooperative solution (to issues) in these waters."

Nakagawa's remarks are the latest development in Japan's ongoing disputes with China, South Korea and Russia over rights to develop undersea oil and gas fields.

In particular, Tokyo and Beijing -- the second- and third-largest consumers of energy in the world, respectively -- have clashed often, as energy prices soar.

"If China does not respond in good faith to our requests, we must proceed to the next step," Nakagawa said.

Tokyo will wait "about one week" after notifying China of its survey results, then prepare to designate areas for drilling, he said.

Japan has no exploratory vessel of its own. It chartered a seismic ship from Norway in July 2004 for its geophysical survey to determine if the undersea natural gas reserves China is tapping, roughly halfway between Okinawa Prefecture and China, extend into waters claimed by Japan.

Chinese Coast Guard ships approached the exploratory vessel, sending it repeated radio warnings and nearly colliding with it at one point, according to Nakagawa.

METI officials said test-drilling at one location in the disputed region would cost at least 3 billion yen. They said the government plans to shoulder all costs for exploration companies due to the high economic risks.

"This is not a project that private businesses can carry out alone," a ministry official said. "The government will entrust those companies to test-drill in the sea area."

It could be months before Japanese firms begin exploration, the officials said.

Several companies have already applied to do the test-drilling, according to the officials."

Look at this article jareth_chong it said,


They are in Japan’s exclusive economic zone. So what did "aggressive" Japan do about it?


Is that all? Oh, no that's not all they are going to do. Apparently if China doesn’t share the data they found while drilling in their own (Japan’s) exclusive economic zone they are going to show their might and...


They are going to do what? And in their own exclusive economic zone. Heaven forbid. :shocked:

Not so fast. Japan "Claims" it is stretched within exclusive territory , however it is still being discussed.

The official who made that remark was the Deputy Defense Minister of Japan, and in his exact words "Dokdo will be taken by force if necessary". The Japanese amphibious exercise happened during last year's dispute over Dokdo.
The difference btw ROK's foreign minister's response and the Deputy Defense Minister's is that the ROK's was defensive in nature and he had more of a diplomatic war in mind, where else the DDMOJ's was openly aggressive.



The Korean Coast Guard has always been on the island, since the Korean independance. It has always been under ROK's Military buffer zone, the zone is recognized by both US and Japanese military (though Japan has violated the airspace 22 times since since the 1950s, in one instance involving a ASDF fighter jet), civies are not allowed in that area; allowing fishermen to cross the zone is like allowing civies just wander around the DMZ.



I guess the fact that Allied command gave the ownership of the island back to Korea didn't matter.

I guess that’s why they call the island in “dispute”. Everyone is claiming what the other is doing is in “their territory”. Point is, it not as lop sided as chong claims. After asking China to stop drilling aggressive Japan is going to do their own digging. OMG!


You got the article? You know I have seen you exact same words on another forum but no where else. Don't tell me you are quoting sources off a message board. Anyway a “diplomatic war in mind”. Like aggressively turning back Japanese fishing boats?


The island is under “dispute”. You do understand what that means? Japan claims that Korea has been illegally occupying their territory since the end of WWII.

And another thing "civies are not allowed in that area; allowing fishermen to cross the zone is like allowing civies just wander around the DMZ". Korea has turned the island in to a fu-king National Park "civies" visit it everyday. Apparently you don’t know what you are talking about.


This is not a fact, unlike the fact that the US did handover the ownership of the Senkaku Islands back to Japan in 1971. The San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 states which territories that Japan has occupied before WWII shall be given back to Korea. Takeshima/Doko Island was not listed as one of those territories. Korea believes that it was implied but not stated. Japan felt that the case then should be decided by the International Court of Justice in 1954 but Korea rejected their proposal to do so. It then came latter under agreement by both countries that the territory would be shared however, Japanese fishermen have been claiming the Korean coast guard around the islands have been turning back their boats.

http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html

^ For some reason I can't copy and paste texts from that website. You'll have to scroll down to the "Recent Conflicts" section.

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...c=7113&hl=dokdo



The video doesn't work for me anymore. But maybe you'll see it.




I should have word it better. Tourists also visit certain parts of the DMZ, but they can't just do whatever they want, procedures and regulations have to be followed especially when it comes to crossing the zone without authorization.

Lets not make personal attacks on each other over this issue, it could lead to a flame war, attracting more trolls, and just make us look silly flaming about a little rocks in the middle of the ocean.



http://kn.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html...00110160007.asp



http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page7.html

To be honest with you I could not careless if japan gets on or not. I personally don't support japan aiding the outside communities in anyway unless of course we stand to gain in the long run. I hope japan cuts all donations to the UN if it gets rejected. No point in helping when others clearly don't want the help. This money could be put to better use within our own borders.

I have looked at the links you have provided. None have mentioned what you have quoted the Japanese Minister of Defense as saying.


As for the video from the other forum it did not work for me, either. Anyhow referring to the geocities site.


So was this truly a practice for re-occupation of the island or a paranoid speculation? As stated the Japanese government denied it was but why should they have when as you have claimed the Deputy Defense Minister of Japan stated "Dokdo will be taken by force if necessary". So why back down now? Never the less let’s say that is truly what they were practicing for. This drill was in 1996, so when did Japan attack? Who’s coast guard is currently patrolling the islands and who’s coast guard is turning away Japanese fishing boats from a “shared territory”?


Here's a pic of the island.


What’s the concern? Is the Korea military hiding something on the islands? No, as far as I know they have a lighthouse and a coastguard station. If they were hiding anything else it would be a major break in agreement. Besides that, these are fishing boats that we are talking about. Japanese are not landing on the island. So what would their concern be for Japanese fishing boats to be fishing off those waters? Unless they are looking to insure that their own fishermen get a greater cut of the catch. The catch for Japanese fishing boats has severely decreased over the years because of Korea’s occupation of the island and their coast guard “security”.



http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/GC23Dh03.html

Is this really an example of “joint control”?


Personally I don’t mind the trolls but I can try to be civil. As for my comment you don’t have to take it personally. Your comment was clearly off and as you said it may have been better worded.

Back to the topic at hand, what they are referring to in the article you quoted is also the same treaty as mentioned in the geocities site you posted up at the top of your last post.


Notice it clearly states this is not an "ultimate" decision. It was meant to be an interim decision. The final decision was laid out in the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952.

Again as I have stated.


You know I don’t really care to argue who has the true rights of ownership to these islands. This can turn out to be a long and lengthy debate. My problem is only with chong’s hypocritical remarks about Japan’s actions over this issue. Japan is acting no worse or hostile than China, Korea or Russia in regards to who owns these islands as chong claims them to be. If anything Japan has been the least aggressive in these regards. What chong has been stating is a bunch of bull but if you want to jump aboard that same boat with chong I will be happy to point that out to you as well.

don't use the word j@p since there are people who find it deragatory. verbal warning.

Holy crap, this thread and the messages are getting longer and longer. I've made my stance known on this subject, and I'm actually already getting pretty tired of it. However, I'm going to respond to item1702 to show that reason and righteousness, as well as the overwhelming sentiment of the Chinese and Korean people, are on my side.





There have been numerous examples, including another much talked-about one in which Japan sent a research team and built a research facility on one of the disputed islands. Some people might disagree, but most reasonable people think of stationing people or building lighthouses and facilities as a gesture of asserting territorial rights and snatching territories.



Good for China!

As I've posted way back: "if Japan was not going to honor the negotiation process, China and Korea should be doing exactly the same thing to Japan." What is the point of following the rules of negotiation when Japan has already repeatedly broken them since 1988 (and probably even before then)? The negotiation should have been off since back then, not until 2003.



Check your timeline. Japan was already not negotiating (or just pretending to be negotiating) for over 15 years, since the 1980s, way before China and Korea decided to retaliate, tic-for-tac.



Good for Korea too!



As I've said: "if Japan was not going to honor the negotiation process, China and Korea should be doing exactly the same thing to Japan." Is there still a point for continual negotiation when Japan had already shown it was insincere to negotiate? China and Korea should have waken up to the reality a long time ago. They should have retaliated back in the 1980s when Japan first broke the rules. (Then again, China and Korea were not as strong as they are now to do much.)



D's past aggression being a different issue, the current problem is that D had broken the rules first to take away the stuff of A, B and C, when they had agreed to talk it over before anyone made a move. So, A and B had been patient for over 15 years before they decided: "To hell with the rules. D had started breaking 'em since 15 years ago... If he hasn't been playing by the rules for 15 years, why are we??!"

Of course, the other issue is that D has never apologized for it's aggression against A and B (or is just plain insincere in his apologies.) And it's not like some light trangression either. You can say D basically broke into A's and B's house by force, and then raped, pillaged, burned, tortured, maimed, murdered the family members of A and B. Then D just flat out denies anything has ever happened and calls A and B liars and whiners for bringing up D's crimes.

Can you see why there's a fallout between D and A, B?

[to be continued...]

[...continued]



If there was any apology, it was unofficial and insincere at best. How else could you explain these very recent events?

'Japan's textbook changed for worse'

Chinese and S.Koreans sue over Japan textbook

Japan's twisted textbooks spark anger

Anti-Japanese Sentiment Flares Up in China

Japan's rising rightism hurts its U.N. ambitions

I could have understood if there were few Japanese right-wing nutcases want to rewrite history. Every country has its right-wing racists and radicals. However, it is plainly clear that Japan's educational board--reflecting Japan's official position--is to deny the truth, the wrongs that Japanese had inflicted on other Asians. That is inexcusable.

[to be continued...]

Again you are referring to the Senkaku Islands and to a lighthouse built by nationalists who could now longer take care of it so the Japanese government was going to take care of it. I have asked you twice to give me another example but you have failed. And so what if the government took over the lighthouse, it has not stopped the Chinese from conducting their drilling in the region. Did you see that article posted by khu91x? Let me ask you this do you even have a clue about what you are talking about?

Do you want some history about the Senkaku Islands?




There are numerous examples but yet you can’t seem to mention one other than the Senkaku dispute. Again are you making this up? Can you give me a source or even a name for the island?


What? Check your time. I can make up dates as well but what’s your point?


So what did they do? Tell me. And again you do sound like a kid.

I see that you live in the US you don’t think that US books are bias? Or that any other text books from other countries aren’t? Why should you even be concerned for an apology when it is obvious it will never be good enough for you anyways?

You have given me nothing solid so far except for nationalist building a lighthouse on Senkaku. You have point out this example out 3 times. In the rest of your post it is as if you are just rambling on.

You have ignored the fact that despite Japan's pleas China has not desided to cooperate with them in regards to the Senkaku Islands. Again look at the earlier posts.
You also igonre the fact that though the Takeshima Islands are supposed to be under joint control it is the Korea coast guard that runs the show around the islands.
You have ignored the countless apologies the Japanese government has made, obviously becasue you don't really give a $hit for them.

You're either a hater or you are doing some major selective reading.

Look I don’t care if you don’t want to be Gandhi. You don’t got to like no body. But if you are going be a hater then just be a hater. Do you really need to make up excuses for why you should hate Japan? Besides the excuses you are making now make no sense. Not saying that haters have all that much sense in the first place but I can understand a person being a hater much more easily than a person being a moron.

By the way you double posted. That's a no no. It seems you have ignored this rule three times already in this one thread. Please abide by the rules as set out by the staff of AF.

Wow....Japan claimed them since 1905????? $hit give it over to them!!!

"The first historical references to the island were cited in Korean documents, which make reference to them as a part of an independent island state known as "Usankuk" (Ullung Island) which was incorporated into the Korean Shilla Dynasty in 512 AD. Dokdo was first registered on charts in Europe after a French expedition under the leadership of Jean F.G. Perouse travelled to the East Sea/Sea of Japan in May of 1787, naming Ullung Island as "Dagelet", for a French astrologer, and Dokdo as "Boussole", after the name of one of the ships on the expedition. It was not until 1849, when French whale-hunters gave the name of their ship to the islets, that Dokdo began to be called "Liancourt Rocks". Other names have been ascribed to Dokdo ("Manalai and Olivutsa Rocks" by a Russian warship in 1854, and "Hornet Rocks" by the British, after one of their ships, the Hornet in 1855) but the name "Liancourt Rocks" is the only one of these names that is commonly seen on (usually older) English-language maps and sea charts published since 1910. The island was known to Koreans as "Kajido" (Sealion Island), "Sambongdo" (Three-Rock Island) and "Sokdo". Since at least 1881, the island has been called Dokdo by Koreans, meaning "Lonely Island" or "Rock Island", depending on the Sino-Korean character that one uses for the word, "Dok". Since at least 1905, the islets have been known by the Japanese name "Takeshima", but were previously known to Japanese as "Matsushima" or the "Rykano" islets. "


http://www.geocities.com/mlovmo/page4.html

[...continued]



Biased one-sided data quoted from Japanese sources. The sovereignty of those islands is anything but certain. That was why China and Korea called for negotiations with Japan. Japan, however, has never been never in the mood to negotiate, and Japan has shown its mood consistently since the 1980s. China and Korea have been kinda, um, slow to take over 15 years to figure that out.

Before I continue, let me clarify the real purpose of my messages, as some people seem to have failed to grasp so far:

My purpose here has never been about the sovereignty of the islands. I seriously doubt anyone here is the historian or diplomat to authorize all the complexities and details of the sovereignty disputes. My point is to show the pattern of behavior and aggressiveness of Japan, as shown by Japan's bilateral disputes--bitter and ugly--with every single one of all its neighbors, and the pattern of bad faith of Japan, as shown by Japan's first breaking of rules of engagement during negotiations--plus other incidents, including the Prime Minister's insensitive visitations to the Shrine of war criminals and the worsening rewritings of history of WWII. If all that is not bad faith, what else is?


Concerning the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands:



On this matter, let's establish the timeline first. Unlike item1702, I am not going to quote from a Japanese (or Chinese) source because it is obviously biased. So I am going to quote from a third-party (i.e., UK) source:



Of course, as Japan would have it, the timeline means $hits, doesn't it?

So let's turn our attention to, treaties. As pertinent to this Diaoyu/Senkaku business, there is actually quite a few different official bilateral historical documents: treaties, declaration, and proclamation. However, Japan just loooves to use a particular one. The San Francisco Treaty. Specifically, Article 3 of that particular Treaty, as if it overwrites all other treaties and everything else in existence. (And there seems to be awful lots of "everything else" to dispute that one particular Article in that one particular Treaty.) The problem with the San Francisco Treaty is that Article 2 and 3 conflict--Article 2 supports China's claim, while Article 3 supports Japan's. (Shouldn't Article 2 takes precedence over Article 3? )

Again, from the same third-party source:



So, Japan has one Article from one Treaty. China is backed a whole slew of treaties, plus a different Article from the same Treaty Japan is holding onto.

Moreover, it does not matter if China did not 'object' to the San Francisco Treaty, because Article 2 supports China's claim anyway (while Article 3 seems to support Japan's--the Treaty itself is problematic and full of self-contradictions.) Did China signed the Treaty? Endorsed it? Agreed to be abided by it over all other prior treaties? Most importantly, if China had not objected to it before, China certainly seems to be objecting to it now.

However, as I've said, the islands' sovereignty is unclear and disputable. I am still going to give Japan the benefit of the doubt. That is why the best way to settle the discrepancies is through negotiations. That is why China wanted to negotiate with Japan. Japan, however, clearly has very little interest in negotiation. (Obviously, because Japan was the first to show bad faith in negotiation since way back in 1980.) Japanese are already 100% certain the islands are rightfully theirs, so they will only see evidences that support and assert their rights and nothing else. ("The islands are OURS, damnit, OURS! Why should we negotiate with those Manchurians?! Why didn't those darn Manchurians object to the treeeeaty? huh? It's too late now. ALL YOUR ISLAND ARE BELONG TO US!!") There can't be a true negotiation when Japan has never had the intention to negotiate.

Here is a few objective (i.e., neither Japanese nor Chinese) sources on this matter:

The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute

GlobalSecurity.org | Senkaku / Diaoyutai Islands

Wikipedia | Senkaku Islands (A less objective resource as it could be altered by anyone.)

By the way, please try not quote parts of those documents that support Japan's claims while, at the same time, ignore the other parts that support China's. In fact, those sources remain neutral and provide facts and grounds from and for either side. And, as I've said, the islands' sovereignty is unclear and disputable.


Concerning Dokdo/Takeshima Islands:



So says Japan. Koreans say they have historical documents that named Dokdo as a territory that was first incorporated into the Korean Shilla Dynasty as early as 512 AD. "Crap." Don't Japanese just hate those timelines?

UK IndyMedia | Dokdo in the East Sea of Korea

Wikipedia | Liancourt Rocks.

I'm sure Koreans have much to say on that matter. So I'm just going to leave it at that.


Concerning South Kuriles/Northern Territories:

I brought up Russia's dispute to show the pattern of behavior of Japan. In truth, I do not care much for Russia or its dispute with Japan. I believe Russia will ultimately settle with Japan, by selling out its territories in exchange for Japan's economic assistants. Russia is that desperate.

(On a side note: everytime I look at Russia and the hell it is right now, I am thankful that that China had not given in to the students' democratic protest of the 1990s and chosen the same path as Russia did. Just imagine the $hitty situation China would be in if the students had succeeded at Tiananmen. China could have been the other Russia. Of course, that scenario would have been Americans and Japanese' ultimate wetdream come true. I suppose that is that why Americans lament so mournfully for Tiananmen: "Damned, a missed opportunity!" Now the US and Japan actually have to deal with China on a more-or-less equal footing. Damn!)

Anyway, let's get back to the main point. The followings are some objective (i.e., non-Russian, non-Japanese ) sources on the Russian-Japanese territorial dispute. I am not going to selectively (i.e., baisedly) quote from the sources, as item1702 did. So here they are:

About.com | The Kuril and Sakhalin Island Controversy

South Kuriles/Northern Territories: A Stumbling-block in Russia-Japan Relations

So, the issue is certainly not as clear cut as item1702 as shown with his biased sources.




In closing, let me self-quote from this very message:

...let me clarify the purpose of my messages, as some people seem to have failed to grasp so far:

My purpose here has never been about the sovereignty of the islands. I seriously doubt anyone here is the historian or diplomat to authorize all the complexities and details of the sovereignty disputes. My point is to show the pattern of behavior and aggressiveness of Japan, as shown by Japan's bilateral disputes--bitter and ugly--with every single one of all its neighbors, and the pattern of bad faith of Japan, as shown by Japan's first breaking of rules of engagement during negotiations--plus other incidents, including the Prime Minister's insensitive visitations to the Shrine of war criminals and the worsening rewritings of history of WWII. If all that is not bad faith, what else is?

You have taken my quote out of text. Is this some kind of dirty underhanded ploy of yours to twist my message? Either way was I wrong when I stated that Japan had indeed at certain points in time come in control of the islands with out so much a bomb or a shot fired? If you read what I have stated I don’t see how you can disagree. My point was simply to show what I have stated.




Yes and I see you are doing it well but with only lop sided and bias views. My point was to show you that in dispute for these island Japan has acted no worse or more aggressive than China, Korea or Russia. My point was not to discern who has the true rights to these islands.

Concerning the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands
At one point most of China belong to the Mongolians should the Mongolians now have the right to take back what was once theirs? The islands belong to the US after the war. They used as targets for testing bombs. China made no objects. In 1971 the US signed over the islands to Japan in which they then took full control of the islands. It was not until late in the 1970’s did China raise objects. Yet this is all beside the point really. It wasn’t my intention to show who has the true right’s to the island but to show you that Japan has as much right to the claim. Show me though how this is proof that Japan has been the worse aggressor in these disputes.


This is your quote. Is this what you believe Japan to have said? It is already very apparent that you have a bias view.

Concerning Dokdo/Takeshima Islands
Again the debate will be long and lengthy as to who has the true right to claim the island as theirs. The point is that the island is supposed to be under joint control. Again show me where Japan has been the bigger aggressor.

Concerning South Kuriles/Northern Territories
Again the debate will be long and lengthy I had no intention in trying to decided who it truly belongs to. Show me how Japan is the aggressor.


You are Asian I presume. Most Asians have high respect for their ancestors. Whether you view these soldiers as criminals or that have fought and died for their country. These dead soldiers are fathers and grandfathers to many not just some war criminal as you call them. May be it is you who is being insensitive to the Prime Minister's personal feelings.

I am glad you took the time to finally do some research concerning the history of these disputes however you have failed to prove your point with any logical argument. China, Korea and Russia is in no way less responsible for how these disputes have turned out. I have constantly asked you to point out instances in which Japan has been the greater aggressor and yet you have failed to do so each time. The only proof you have given as Japan being the bigger aggressor in the current disputes of these islands is your bias and slanderous remarks, which you have yet to support with any facts. Your last post can only show how muddled the history of these disputes are. Again as I have stated in previous post my point was not to discern who has the true rights to these islands. My point was to show you that in dispute for these island Japan has acted no worse or more aggressive than China, Korea or Russia. Your post have shown nothing in support of the claim you are trying to make.

You need to refrain from making personal attacks, specifically name calling and labelling. I am not going to talk down to you and call you a 'hater', 'moron' or 'kid', so you should control yourself from lashing out hateful comments at me or anyone else personally. This is not the first time you attack me, but I've let the last few times slip. So far, I have focused this disagreement as between Japan and China/Korea, I have focused on your arguments and sources instead of you, and I have refrained from attacking you personally. If you choose to persist, this will have to degenerate into some ugly name-calling, labelling contest.

I will contest your other points at a more convenient time.

I have not specifically called you a moron. However, I must admit that I can not understand how after I asked you three times to show me another case in which Japan has setup up a facility on any of these islands other than the Senkaku Island you have persistently gave me the same example. I will admit that I do not have much patience for such things. You have made many slanderous claims yet provided very little proof if any at all. It is also apparent at the start of this discussion you had very little knowledge of the issue in regarding the disputed islands.

As for the kid remark saying that one person did this so I will do this is childish. This kind of logic only reminds me of two children quarreling.

Mother: Why did you hit him?
Kid: Because he called me names.

As for the hater remark, your post as so full of biased statements in which you have placed labels on Japan and Japanese.



What kind of comment is this? I would say something else but for now I will refrain.



Snatched? Japan has as much rights to these islands as these other countries do yet you say they are aggressor and claim that they have snatched territories without providing any proof. I only then gave you a little history to show you Japan’s claim to these islands which you first tossed off and apparently had no knowledge off. It is clear this was a very bias statement.



China has called Japan’s actions “illegal” yet you ignore this and seem to claim that it is perfectly acceptable that China had been in the islands drilling before Japan stated it would take control of the lighthouse. You have also apparently ignored the warning Korea had given to Japan in response to pass a bill for Takeshima Day. When has Japan made any worse remarks towards the other countries in which they have not also done so to Japan?



Here you portray Japan as the aggressor again insinuating they will go to war. It also shows you did not much knowledge of the disputes at the time as I pointed out to you that Japan did in fact come in to claim of these territories at one point with no violence or war. Later you then twist my statment.



What is this about? What kind of comment are you trying to make with this? This is clearly inappropriate.



Again this statement shows your biased views toward Japan.



I can only state that this is a very ignorant comment, which shows you know nothing about Japanese people or simple choose to deny what I have presented you with. I have shown you many times when the government had made personal apologies and I am sure you must have seen my post of the Japanese bicyclist in this forum yet you simply ignore the evidence and make such a generalized statement.



Again what kind of remark is this? It sounds to be one of envy to me.



Again you generalize Japan as a whole in denying the “truth” and wrongs that have been committed during the war. The head government does not control which books a prefecture will decide to use. Currently the textbook of much controversy is expected to be only used by Tokyo. It does not mean that all schools of Tokyo will use them however. Further more Japan is consists of more cities than just Tokyo.

You have made many slanderous and generalized remarks of Japan and the Japanese without so much at first considering the facts or having any knowledge of them. Tell me what am I to suspect?

I don't mean to insinuate anything here but let me ask you is the reason why it is not currently convenient for you to respond to my last post, is because you are just now looking for the proof for which you have been claiming? This can only tell me that you have been holding such views with out so much of any evidence. Some would call this racism. If this is not the case there is no need for you to fret. You can simply ignore this last statement.

Hey Item1702..



You defend Japan like they did nothing wrong. Typical Japanese mentality. This is the exact example of the why Japan has problems with the rest of Asia.