China takes islands dispute with Japan to pages of U.S. newspapers

Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:46pm EDT

An aerial photo shows a Chinese marine surveillance ship Haijian No. 66 (R) cruising next to Japan Coast Guard patrol ships in the East China Sea, known as Senkaku isles in Japan and Diaoyu islands in China, in this photo by Kyodo September 24, 2012. REUTERS/Kyodo

An aerial photo shows a Chinese marine surveillance ship Haijian No. 66 (R) cruising next to Japan Coast Guard patrol ships in the East China Sea, known as Senkaku isles in Japan and Diaoyu islands in China, in this photo by Kyodo September 24, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Kyodo

(Reuters) - With world leaders gathered in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, China has taken its dispute with Japan over the ownership of a chain of islands to the ad pages of major American newspapers.

China Daily, an organ of the Communist Party and the country's official English-language daily newspaper, took out full-page-spread advertisements on Friday in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

The ad's headline asserts "Diaoyu Islands Belong to China" over a color picture of the string of islands in the East China Sea. It says the islands "have been an inherent territory of China since ancient times."

Ownership of the islands has become a major flashpoint in deteriorating Sino-Japanese relations. The potentially gas-rich uninhabited islets, administered by Japan for years, have been claimed by China and Taiwan, where they are known as Diaoyu and Tiaoyutai, respectively.

The festering dispute figured prominently at the General Assembly this week as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged China and Japan on Thursday to let "cooler heads" prevail.

In September, Japan brought the chain - known to the Japanese as the Senkaku Islands - under state control through a "purchase" from a private owner.

A spokesperson for the Japanese consulate in New York defended Japan's ownership of the islands but would not comment on the Chinese ads.

(Editing by Mary Milliken and Ciro Scotti)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (16)
neahkahnie wrote:
Hey, China, thanks for the money for ad space.

Sep 28, 2012 10:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
VonHell wrote:
Imagine af a country like Zimbabwe or Zambia discover they had some island pretty much useless for living before but now with some newly discovered reserves of oil or gas…

Then some american or british traditional oil company would explore the site paying a relatively misery amount of royalties to the government of that country and virtually nothing to the owner of the island, since the oil is deep under seabed and not on the Castaway movie island…
And the Zimbabwean people? ofc, almost forgot them. They would probably have to pay for the fuel to their cars coming from around that island pretty much the same price, by the time far more than $120 a barrel of crude, if US dollar continues to devaluate at present rate…
And some people may argue that at least they will have secured a suply when the rest of the world faces the inevitable shortage of nonrenewable fuel sources… ofc the Zimbabweans then will have to pay a fortune for a tank of gas from the Castaway island… because the barrel of crude will be far more than $300 of the now faster-devaluating US dollars… and will be non reliable and non affordable for the now poorer Zimbabwean people to use like fuel source… and they will have to look to other sources anyway, because that is inevitable…

But thank God the China-Japan dispute is not a futile dispute about fuel, because that would be futile for their people anyway… but is simply a futile dispute about fuel plus a futile dispute about pride… that is already hurting their economies by the way and will pretty soon affect the zimb…, ops sorry, chinese and japanese people lives…

Sep 28, 2012 10:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
It’s pretty simple. Both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation intend to restore Japanese sovereignty to those prior to the sino-japanese war, i.e prior to 1895. And since Diaoyu islands were Chinese territory until First sino-japanese war, China should have the claim. Unless, of course, we want to rewrite the Cairo and Potsdam statement.

Sep 28, 2012 10:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Pictures