Pearl Harbour and Nanking - you've got them wrong!

Someone commented on an Economist article:
 

"(remember) pearl harbour sneaky attack where thousands americans killed and ships sunk.

....(and) nanking massacre---where over 300 thousans weak and timid chinese civilians were butchered and raped".

Still this ??  It's really hight time for people to know!

Pearl Harbour: Roosevelt knew about what was coming beforehand, replaced the most advanced battleships with the old ones at the Harbour and let Japan attack first. The US then already had the advanced code-breaking technology and grasped almost all the movement by Japan. So it was not at all a "sneak attack" by Japan like everybody eagerly wants to believe.

"Nanking Massacre": China, who makes mountains out of molehills, had said at the League of Nations back then that 20,000 people were killed in Nanking, meaning less than 20,000. On top, most of them were soldiers who were disguised as citizens, and not civilians.

Remembering wrong things doesn't serve anything. If you are one of those who believe "Pearl Harbour Sneak Attack" and "300,000 killed in Nanking Massacre", please do update your knowledge now!

外務省への意見（竹島）

国会中継を見ました。新藤義孝氏の発言は正しい。今我が国の領土である竹島は大変な事になっており日本政府は断固として韓国に具体的な行動をとっていくべきだ。抗議だけではもう遅い。新藤氏の提案するように、独島体験館へ政府調査団を送り、間違った歴史観は全て改め体験館を閉鎖するように圧力をかける事が必要。体験館は世界中に非合法かつ虚構である「独島」の正当性を認めさせる事になり、日本国は体験館を始めその他竹島に関する韓国の非礼極まりない暴行を阻止しなければいけない。正は正、悪は悪と堂々と発言していくのが当たり前の世界で、日本だけが他国の顔を窺い強い発言、行動をしてこなかった。もうその態度を根本的に変えなければ日本という国自体の存在が危ぶまれる時期に入った。日本をここまで追い込んだ外務大臣、総理大臣の責任は重い。

玄葉大臣は新藤氏の独島体験館への調査団の提案に対し即「その必要はないと思う」と発言したが、大臣の対応を見ていて、大臣には領土を守る、即ち国を断固としてでも守るという気概が欠落していると強く感じた。パンフレットなどは用意しておりそれを使う、そして適切な行動をとっていくと。この期に及んで何をのんきなことを言っているのか、日本人として強い怒りを感じる。今、日本として確固たる行動をとらなければ、嘘が世界に定着し、それが事実となる。日本が行動を起こさなければ他に誰が行動を起こすのか。世界は強く発言、行動し続けたものを真実と思う。私は海外生活が長いが、海外のメディアも人も、嘘を大声で吐き続けそれを行動にも移している韓国中国の「事実」を信じているものが多い。なぜなら日本が何も行動しないからだ。日本には世界の常識がないのか。現政権はやっていると言いながら実は韓国に大事な釘を刺してはいない。

韓国に対して早急にすべく具体的行動は、独島体験館への政府調査団派遣、２月２２日の竹島の日を全国規模に拡大する決定、国際司法裁判所への単独提訴、通貨スワップの全面停止、韓流ドラマの中止、理不尽な言いがかりや日本批判に政府として毅然と反論。これらの行動なくして問題解決はならず、日本は三流国家へと急落していくだろう。

自民党時代がどう、民主党政権がどうしたとう意味のない議論をしている場合ではない。今日本国として立ち向かっていかなければならない。それが出来ない政権は、政権を取る資格はない。

Ancient Chinese people didn't think Senkakus (Diaoyu) as theirs

China claims Senkakus (Diaoyu) as theirs based on the “ancient documents”. 

Yet, their ancient documents such as Imperial Mission Zhai Kun’s Hundred Verses of the East Sea from 1808 indicates Jilongshan, the mountain of the province of Taiwan, is the boundary of Qing Dynasty. (Qing Dynasty possessed Taiwan in 1684). Revised Book of Taiwan Province of 1693 by Gao Gonggan indicates “To the north Jilongshan is 2,325 Ri (1,296 km) away and makes the boundary.” 

Clearly Senkakus are out of Chinese boundary - ancient Chinese people said so !

This 9-page document by Professor Shimojo Masao, Takushoku University,

analyzes the ancient documents and demonstrates that Chinese claims are not valid.  http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/87_S4.pdf

Senkakus mixed up with anti-Japan sentiment

The Economist was introducing the history of China and Japan in the article on the Senkaku Islands:

"Twenty-six years after the Meiji Restoration, Japan was undertaking an aggressive programme to modernise its industry and its army. It was also eager to join the ranks of Europe’s imperialist nations."

Well, the last sentence needs explanation - it was not eager to line up with the West for the sake of it.

It is important to understand the history in the context of the time.

The reason why Japan undertook the Meiji Restoration and vigorously pushed forward modernization of its industry and army was to defend the country from the waves of colonization of Asia by the great powers of the West. By the end of 1800s, almost all countries in Asia, except the far East, were colonized by the West. This fact, highlighted by the Opium War in 1840 where the British defeated the Qing empire and took Hong Kong, gave Japan a growing sense of crisis. 

What Japan pursued as a matter of course was joint defense of Asia with the Qing empire and Korea. At least, Japan wanted both countries to acquire the power to reject the advance of the West into the region, and thus be modernized. However, the two countries strongly held Sinocentrism and even hostility toward Japanese modernization strategy. Meanwhile, the West steadily expanded its control over Asia.

Knowing the consequence of non-action, Japan finally declared war with the Qing empire in 1894 to demand independence of Korea, which was a tributary state of the Qing empire (in response to the Qing army’s intervention in Donghak Peasant Revolution in Korea). Japan won the war, and Korea gained independence. In 1897, Korea named itself the Korean Empire, with its “Emperor” gaining the equal status as the Qing Emperor. 

After the WWII, both China and Korea have been thoroughly inculcating anti-Japanese propaganda and biased history to their population. The issue of the Senkaku Islands is also mixed up with the anti-Japanese sentiment. The process of obtaining the Senkakus was nothing to do with “the invasion”, since Japanese government incorporated the Islands in its territory in 1895 only after it confirmed that the islands were no man’s land based on the 10 years of field study. This is a valid way of gaining a territory according to the international law (“Preoccupation”). 

This is a sovereignty issue, and we need to discuss based on the facts, not emotions.

“The Senkaku Islands Constitute an Intrinsic Part of Japan” explains the issue in much detail based on the historical evidence: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/79_S4.pdf

Japan didn't surrender Senkakus after WWII

Somebody said the following:

"Japan doesn't have any right for brinkmanship over her disputed territorites with her neighbours. Being the country defeated in WWII she has obligations to abide by the terms of her unconditional surrender including the return of territory annexed by past wars of aggressions. Furthermore any remaining disputes should be taken to the International Court of Justice where it can be properly addressed and resolved peacefully."

Though I agree with the last sentence, he misunderstands the content of the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed after WWII between Japan and the Allies. 

The Senkaku Islands are not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article II of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Also, the Senkaku Islands are not included in Taiwan and Hoko Shoto Islands which were ceded by China under the same Article. The Senkaku Islands have been placed under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Nansei Shoto Islands, in accordance with Article III of the Treaty, and are included in the area, the administrative rights over which were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands signed on 17 June 1971. These facts clearly indicate the status of the Senkaku Islands being part of the territory of Japan.

The fact that China expressed no objection to the status of the Islands being under the administration of the United States under Article III of the San Francisco Peace Treaty clearly indicates that China did not consider the Senkaku Islands as part of Taiwan. It was not until the 1970s, when oil reserve was found around the islands, that the Government of China and Taiwan authorities began to raise questions regarding the Senkaku Islands.

The case should be brought to the International Court of Justice so that it becomes clear to the world that the Senkaku Islands are inherently and legally Japanese territory.


More info on the facts about Senkakus: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html

Also, “The Senkaku Islands Constitute an Intrinsic Part of Japan” explains the issue in much detail based on the historical evidence: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/79_S4.pdf

Japanese government's mishandling of Senkakus

Somebody said the following regarding the Senkaku Islands: 

"Follow what has been reported during 田中角榮's (Takana Kakuei's) visit to Zhou En Loi (周恩来), both leaders agreed that there is dispute, but both leaders agreed to put aside the difference for future leaders to resolve, which is the basis for normalization of relationship between the two countries." (so why Japan now tries to spoil the relationship with China?) 

Well, I thought about this comment for a moment, and in fact, it leads to a critical point, that is: Many Japanese politicians and officials have weak spots with China and have not spoken up clearly the facts and Japan’s positions as they are supposed to.  

In fact, Takana Kakuei (田中角栄) did not say there was a dispute, though he ended up agreeing tacitly to Zhou En Loi (周恩来)’s suggestion not to discuss the issue of Senkaku Islands at the time of signing the Joint Communique on normalization in 1972. 

The 4-day negotiation meeting was held in September 1972 between Tanaka Kakuei and Zhou En Loi just before they signed the Joint Communique.  During this meeting, Takana asked Zhou En Loi “What do you think of Senkaku Islands?”, and Zhou En Loi replied “With regards to Senkaku Islands, I don’t want to discuss at this time. It’s not good to discuss this now. Oil is discovered, which has become a problem. Without oil, both Taiwan and the U.S. would not make it an issue” (translated from the meeting minutes stored at the University of Tokyo). The serious mistake that Tanaka made was that he did not say that the islands have been under Japanese administration since 1895 and that “the issue” does not exist. 

The same goes for the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China, which was signed in August 1978 with the issue of Senkakus suspended. When Deng Xiaoping visited Japan in October in the same year, and said that the issue should be dealt with by the future generation, the Government of Japan didn’t respond properly, letting the “territorial dispute” be a fixed matter. 

Not saying the right thing at the right time, or not saying anything at all, gives the room for others to take advantage of, and gives a wrong impression. The fault is partly with the Government of Japan in this regard. Chinese leaders were clever in making the non-issue an issue. Asahi Shimbun, the leftist, pro-China newspaper in Japan, has been gladly helping China to make this an issue. 

However, this does not change the historical fact and the fact in light of the international law that the Senkaku Islands are the Japanese territory.

                                   ***********************

In fact, both China and Taiwan verify Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands through their own documents, for example:

1. World Atlas (Beijing Map Publishing Co., 1960)
2. World Atlas, Vol. 1 – East Asian Nations (joint publication by the Taiwan’s National Defense Studies Institute and the Chinese Institute for Geoscience, 1965)
3. The letter of gratitude from the Chinese consul in Nagasaki (1920)

4. A classified 1969 map produced by People’s Republic of China official map authority (posted in the Washington Times, September 19, 2010)

5. People’s Daily (January 8, 1953)

These documents are explained with the actual graphics in this link:

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/77_S4.pdf

The document “The Senkaku Islands Constitute an Intrinsic Part of Japan” explains the issue in much detail based on the historical evidence:

http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL02_1/79_S4.pdf

CNN not getting the facts right on Senkakus?

This article from CNN writes on Senkaku Islands as follows (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/17/world/asia/china-japan-islands-dispute-explained/index.html?iid=article_sidebar&is_LR=1):

"The question of ownership of the islands extends back to 1895 when Japan says China ceded sovereignty of the islands when it lost the Sino-Japanese war."

China never had sovereignty over the islands. It was no man’s land that Japan discovered and incorporated under its territory in 1895.

A proof is that Koga Tatsushiro, an entrepreneur from Okinawa Prefecture, got approval from the Japanese Government in 1896 and ran various businesses on the islands such as manufacturing dried bonito, without any interference.

Another proof is that China never protested when the islands came under the administrative control of the US after the World War II. As a matter of fact, China never protested against the sovereignty of Japan over the Senkaku Island until after 1968 when a survey found an underwater oil field around the Islands.

If the islands were indeed Chinese “since ancient times”, why did it not protest to the US when it had the islands under its control? And why was China silent until 1968?

Moreover, why did its own official communist paper – People’s Daily – publish an article on January 8, 1953, indicating Senkaku Islands as part of the Ryukyu (present Okinawa)?
The reason is obvious – because the Senkakus are not Chinese.

Governor Ishihara has taken a commendable initiative in his decision to save the Senkakus while the Government of Japan has been lukewarm and rather irresponsible on the matter for way too long. While China-Japan relationships should not be damaged, Japan should voice loudly what’s right. This is a sovereignty issue, which should be dealt with by the facts and the international law, not emotions.   

CNN missing the point on Senkakus?

CNN publishes an article on the disputes over Senkaku Islands - "Dangerous Rocks: Can both sides back off peacefully? http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinion/china-japan-dispute-kingston/index.html, and the conclusion reads as follows:

“To move forward Beijing and Tokyo should … move towards confidence building measures that sidestep the issue of sovereignty”.

By making this conclusion, the reporter seems to be missing the critical point of the matter: China is bluffing to take over a piece of land to which it has no rights, for its own benefits. This is a national sovereignty issue.

China’s claim over Senkakus has no legal ground. International Law sets out rules on defining borders, and a state can have the sovereignty over the land by: 1) Attachment: artificial or natural creation of the land, e.g. through eruption of a submarine volcano, 2) Prescription: possessing the land, with an intention of possession, for a reasonable period of time continuously and openly, 3) Cession: agreement between the states to transfer part of the sovereignty over the land, or 4) Preoccupation: occupying the land first, provided that the land is no man’s land and the claiming state practically occupies it with an intention of occupation. 

In 1895, the Government of Japan confirmed that the Senkaku Islands were no man’s land, and incorporated the Islands in Japan’s territory through the Cabinet decision (“Preoccupation”).

On the other hand, the claim by the Government of China is not based on any of the rules laid out in the International Law. China insists that the islands are Chinese based on ancient documents from hundreds of years ago that have vague content and can be interpreted in various ways.

Moreover, People’s Daily, Chinese Communist Party’s official paper, published an article on January 8, 1953, that indicated the Senkakus as part of the Ryukyu (present Okinawa). The Chinese Communist Party cannot make a claim that contradicts this article - the principle of Estoppel bars a party from denying or alleging a fact that contradicts the party’s previous conduct, allegation or denial.

China has no prospect of winning if the issue of the Senkakus is brought to the International Court of Justice which judges based on the International Law.

Governor Ishihara has taken a commendable initiative in his decision to save the Senkakus while the Government of Japan has been lukewarm and rather irresponsible on the matter for way too long. The issue, if mismanaged, would have grave consequences on China-Japan relationships, which should be avoided. In this modern era, however, the rule of law must be respected. What’s right needs to be loudly voiced. Japan should not remain quiet as it always has been, and China should rise as a true leader with integrity. 

Why Senkaku Islands are Japanese, and not Chinese Diaoyu

Protesters are yelling loud and damaging Japanese shops in China in protest against Japan over the Senkaku Islands, or what they call Diaoyu islands. But is their stance valid? The history says No.

The Senkaku Islands are the territory of Japan historically and in terms of the international laws. In 1885, the Government of Japan conducted thorough field surveys, and confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been uninhabited and not under the control of the Qing Dynasty of China. Based on this confirmation, Japan officially incorporated the Senkaku Islands into its territory in 1895. The process that the Government of Japan followed is valid under the international law (prior occupation of no man’s land).

Koga Tatsushiro, an entrepreneur from Okinawa Prefecture, made an application for the lease of the islands, which was approved by the Japanese Government in 1896. He developed the uninhabited islands and ran various businesses such as manufacturing dried bonito and other marine products, without any interference / protest by anybody. This is one example showing Japan’s valid control over the islands.    

After the World War II, the Senkaku Islands were placed under the administration of the United States as part of Nansei Shoto Islands in accordance with Article 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and were returned to Japan in 1971. 

China never protested against the sovereignty of Japan over the Senkaku Island until after 1968 when a survey found an underwater oil field around the Islands, with estimated deposits of over 100 billion barrels. China never disputed even when the islands came under the administrative control of the US. On the contrary, up to that point, it recognized those islands as Japanese territory: for example, an article of the People’s Daily issued on January 8, 1953 described Senkaku Islands as part of Okinawa.  

This is one of so many issues where mass of people protest loudly and violently yet without grasping the historical facts. It seems rather obvious that there is no point in advocating passionately if we stand on the wrong base?   

The following blog explains the issue in a very simple, straightforward way. Though it was written almost 2 years ago, it sounds so true today :
http://www.kyle.cn/?p=724 

The following video "5 Reasons Why the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands are NOT Chinese Territory" analyzes various historical records:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gnlr_OBN2uw

Sea of Japan - IHO Decision

Yes !  Sea of Japan remains Sea of Japan ! (For now)

The IHO (International Hydrographic Organization), during the conference at Monte-Carlo, Monaco, today decided to keep the single name "Sea of Japan". Korea has been raising the issue of putting the name "East Sea" along with "Sea of Japan".

Korean representatives see this as postponement of the conclusion, and plan to raise the issue at international events in the future.

IHO conference is held once in five years, and this year, it started on April 23. The issue of Sea of Japan was discussed continuously from Day 1.  (From Sankei News (only in Japanese) )

When I first read this, I thought this is a fair and natural decision, since the arguments that Koreans have been bringing up have no historical foundation. But I see one blogger analyzing the issue to point out that this is just postponing the revision of the map of 1953 that uses the single name Sea of Japan, and it will come up again in 2017. S/he further analyzes how the Korean argument on Japan Sea limit is invalid. This blogger explains the naming issue in detail based on historical evidence (both in English and Japanese).

US supports the single name Sea of Japan (relevant article here).
Vladimir Putin uses Sea of Japan in his speeches.

"Sea of Japan" or "East Sea" ? (2)

Mr. Yoshitaka Shindo, a member of the House of Representatives, wrote a report "A Study of Naming Issue of Japan Sea", which explains the issue based on historical evidence. The report was submitted to the US Embassy as well as to the Secretariat of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) this month.

According to Mr. Shindo, South Korea’s assertion“East Sea existed for the past 2000 years” is based on the words “near the East Sea (東海之濱)” written in the chapter "History of the Koguryo (高句麗) Kingdom" in the Chinese book “History of the Three Kingdom (三国史記)”, which described the national foundation of Koguryo (37 BC). However, between the Sea of Japan and Koguryo, a tribal state of Okjeo (沃沮) prevailed, and Koguryo was not adjacent to the Sea of Japan when it was established. Moreover, Bohai Sea and Yellow Sea combined were called “East Sea”, which was different from Sea of Japan.

Mr. Shindo also analyzes other claims by Koreans on the issue, and concludes that they are based on wrong interpretation of the historical evidence.

The sudden objection to the name “Sea of Japan” was first raised by South and North Korea in 1992. Prior to this, there was no objection by these countries. If it was indeed the “East Sea” for the past 2000 years, why raise voice only in the 1990s? – Koreans should ask their government.

The short video here also explains the issue: "Sea of Japan, A Globally Established Name Part 1".

Takeshima or Dokdo ? (1)

(Following the previous post) Incidentally, Takeshima, the Japanese island called “Dokdo” and illegally occupied by Koreans, lies in the “Sea of Japan”. Takeshima officially became Japanese territory in February 1905, after the Government confirmed that it was not owned by anybody.   

In the final draft of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which was signed by Japan and 48 allied nations on Sept 8, 1951, the Allies omitted Takeshima (Dokdo) from the list of the islands Japan should renounce and determined that the island should remain under Japanese sovereignty.   

In 1951, when then South Korean Ambassador to the US requested that Dokdo should be added to the list, Dean Rusk, then US Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs rejected the request replying that the island had never been treated as part of Korea.

However, Syngman Rhee, the first President of South Korea ignored this international determination by the Allies, and laid a boundary line called “Syngman Rhee Line” without any international agreement and started occupying Dokdo illegally from 1952. Conveniently, South Korea has been teaching its young children to firmly make them believe that “Dokdo is Korea Land”.

There seems to be a link between the motivation to change the name “Sea of Japan” and Takeshima.

More Info:

• The video “Do you know the reason why Dokdo is Not Korea Land?” explains this issue based on the historical evidence.

“Sea of Japan” or “East Sea” ? (1)

The sudden objection to the name “Sea of Japan” was first raised by South and North Korea in 1992. Prior to this, there was no objection by these countries.

South Korea asserts that the name Sea of Japan became widespread as a result of Japanese “expansionism and colonial rule” in the latter half of the 19^th century; however, this is incorrect since the name “Sea of Japan” was already prevalent in the early 19^th century (the Edo Period) when Japan had an isolationist policy (i.e. no interaction with other countries). Western countries had already used the word “Sea of Japan” at that time, and for example, the British map in 1840 clearly indicated “Sea of Japan”.

South Korea also asserts that “For the past 2000 years, the name “East Sea” has been used in the Korean Peninsula”, but without providing evidence. Both the UN and the United States formally recognize the name “Sea of Japan”.

More info:

·        A Study of Naming Issue of Japan Sea, by Yoshitaka Shindo, Member of the House of Representatives, can be downloaded from here

·        Japan’s official stance on Sea of Japan, by Ministry of Foreign Affairs is here