U.S. affirms support for Japan in islands dispute with China

Comments (34)

Any objective survey of the facts would contradict Japan’s claim to these islands. Breathtakingly bogus.
Unoccupied islands have always been volunerable to anexation by expansionist nations and China should have been more protective of their claimed islands given this historical fact.
Interesting that the US & Japan do not call for UN intervention to settle the dispute.
If Japan wants the islands let them defend their claim. The US should back-up before it once again finds itself on the wrong side of history. You can only stick your finger in someones eye so many times before they realize its not an accident.

Nov 27, 2013 12:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Japan to China: “Don’t be mad at the rocks that I got.”

China really needs to quit blocking Google Earth from their servers. They would become so much smarter.

Nov 27, 2013 12:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse

From the article: “Washington does not take a position on the sovereignty of the islands but recognizes that Tokyo has administrative control over them and the United States is therefore bound to defend Japan in the event of an armed conflict.”

How much money has Japan contributed to the US Treasury lately?

Same goes for all the other countries that are entitled to US military protection….Israel, for example, receives 3 billion per year in US aid and enjoys the free-of-charge protection of the US armed forces….time to bring the troops home and let neighborhood feuds resolve themselves without counter-productive US meddling.

Nov 27, 2013 12:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Oro_Invictus wrote:


You do realize the PRC has also not called for UN arbitration? Likely because there’s a strong potential they would lose that ruling and it would set a precedent for other regions the PRC claims to also be brought to the UN by concerned parties.

Also, why should Japan call for arbitration? They control the islands and most nation-states have little issue with this (note how many of them use the Japanese names for the islands or, if they do also use the PRC’s names, they’re included as an afterthought). From their perspective, there’s no need to bring it up in the UN; granted from a geopolitical perspective, it would actually be best if they did to get all this stupidity over with.

Nov 27, 2013 12:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RevDrDark66 wrote:

…every stride he makes upon my land
Is dangerous treason: he is come to open
The purple testament of bleeding war.
–Richard II, Shakespeare.

Nov 27, 2013 1:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Kailim wrote:


You are wrong.

Google withdrew from China on its own accord after disagreeing with Chinese rules as announced by itself. It is quite normal as everybody has a choice, same as my own choice of having quit a relative high pay job in America. Anyway we still have Yahoo and Google Hongkong in Guangzhou, China. Come and find out the truth.

Nov 27, 2013 1:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Vaykrie wrote:

The United States does not recognize the right of a coastal nation to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter national airspace nor does the United States apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. airspace. Accordingly, U.S. military aircraft not intending to enter national airspace should not identify themselves or otherwise comply with ADIZ procedures established by other nations, unless the United States has specifically agreed to do so.

Nov 27, 2013 1:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZ1811 wrote:

Biden’s going over there to assure them??? Boy, are we in trouble now.

Nov 27, 2013 1:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bob9999 wrote:

“Biden will not be making a demand on a specific issue but rather will raise the topic as part of talks spanning a range of themes ….”

Of course, it is more effective for Biden not to address specific issues, because the real issue is the overall posture of China vis-a-vis other countries active in the region.

Nov 27, 2013 1:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
smallpeople wrote:

We embarrassed Chinese this time. Many of us probably enjoy this satisfaction very much, but wait until we need them (e.g., to deal with North Korea) or their cooperation (e.g., on Iran sanction)- We’ll know the cost we have to pay for siding with Japan on this sovereignty dispute.

Nov 27, 2013 2:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
smallpeople wrote:

We embarrassed Chinese this time. Many of us probably enjoy this satisfaction very much, but wait until we need them (e.g., to deal with North Korea) or their cooperation (e.g., on Iran sanction)- We’ll know the cost we have to pay for siding with Japan on this sovereignty dispute.

Nov 27, 2013 2:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Temujin wrote:

Chinese have become increasingly behaved like their little cousin NK, that is why no one really has any respect this so-called Middle Kingdom. China must remembered this: Respects are not free and chinese have to earn them.

Nov 27, 2013 2:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Dear smallpeople,

How do you know we “embarrassed” the Chinese?

Nov 27, 2013 2:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Dear smallpeople,

How do you know we “embarrassed” the Chinese?

Nov 27, 2013 2:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

A few questions:

Who claimed the islands prior to WW2?

Who occupied the islands during WW2?

Who legally owned the islands after WW2?

Who sold the islands to Japan after legally owning them?


Nov 27, 2013 2:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
bellerboy wrote:

Last year Japan paid the United State government about $88,000 per US military personnel stationed in Japan. The source was Japanese TV.

Nov 27, 2013 3:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WhyMeLord wrote:

OMG, now we’re going to wage a col war with China…………LOL
Those idiots in Washington are bound ad determined to destroy us.
If the Chinese quit shipping us our bells and whistles, and call in all the debt we owe them, it will throw Ametica into bankruptcy.
Actually, I think that’s what ‘Big Brother” wants, is for America to cease to exist as we know it and to become whatever it is they want.
Talk about cutting off our nose to spite our face; the GOP in action.

Nov 27, 2013 3:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I like this little clashes between superpowers (US vs. China).
On this one: Senkaku/Daoyu islands.
International law (nobody cares about it among superpowers so will just mention the subject for clarity) is more on China’s side. Definitely islands do not belong to Japan. US is de facto, since WW2, self imposed administrator of the rocks.
But the islands themselves are not important.( Nor Japan or any other country).
Rivalry, a new Cold War between US and China is evolving to full swing.
China increased its second strike capability so i think real nuke war is improbable, even if current US military doctrine goes dangerously to this areas. China needs about 5-7 years to have effective full nuclear triad (with 2 boomers at sea 24/365).
It means US first nuclear strike on China before 2020 could be succesful without major US casualties. But Russia/China military alliance till 2024 (end of Putin’s second term) makes it impossible.

Nov 27, 2013 3:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kiven wrote:

why can’t china slant-drill into the island for gas and oil. in united states this type of stealing other people’s land for their oil is old news.

Nov 27, 2013 3:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ancalimon wrote:

Wantunbiasednew (wtf is that?)

China is NOT a superpower. There is only 1 superpower that exists and everyone in the world knows who that is.

Nov 27, 2013 4:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Neurochuck wrote:

In the images, the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands don’t look so tiny, and are not just coral reefs exposed at low tide as in the South China / West Philippine Sea.
If not for the geopolitical standoff, they look quite well located and useful for the Chinese or Japanese military to mount various radars and sensors, and tunnel out for air defense and anti ship missiles or short warning first strike surgical missiles or waves of cruise missiles or nuclear powered pulse lasers or neutron beamers or EMF field scrambler-fryers or whatever new stuff turns up.
Have fun and don’t spend all your money in one shop kids.

Nov 27, 2013 5:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

China blocks Google earth from China, in hopes that more favorable borders will emerge in the minds of their citizens.


Nov 27, 2013 6:24pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Vuenbelvue wrote:

Let’s put this on as a referendum during the useless mid-term 2014 elections. Do you approve of military support of these countries for another 68 years? Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Israel, whoever else include. 1947-2013 Yes or No Majority rules

Nov 27, 2013 7:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MarkDonners wrote:

Considering Japan’s savagery with torture and slaughter of dolphins, and its raping of oceans and forests with its criminal corporations, it’s violation of international marine laws with dumping from ships, its greedy poaching of our last whales in sanctuaries, its illegal trade in endangered ivory and its arrogance in flipping off the world while it does those crimes, I decree that Japan does not own those islands and anyone can take any of their territory whenever they feel like it. China is also an environmental renegade, maybe those two can destroy each other and the world will be rid of two destroyers of the world.

Nov 27, 2013 7:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Robert10 wrote:

US don’t dare to send aircraft carrier groups into East China Sea to show support for its puppet regime in Tokyo. Instead they stayed far away in the South China Seas. I wonder who lost face here.

Nov 27, 2013 7:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ajieh wrote:

Both Japanese and US government chose not to disclose to the public is the declaration of airspace identification zone is being used by 20 nations throughout the world. Since 1960′s, Japan had unilaterally made many expansions of its identification zone with the support of the US government. This is the so called “Status Quo” defined by the US and Japan. Anyone has the sense of knowing the hypocrisy of the US shouldn’t be surprised at this disinformation.

Nov 27, 2013 7:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Pterosaur wrote:

The US has just signed a deal with Iran(not even a sure deal) and yet right away started to engage in another war. Keep going…

Nov 27, 2013 8:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Free_Pacific wrote:

China has only just saved face by sending a hospital ship to the Philippines. And already it is taking advantage of everyone’s absence in dealing with the disaster, to grab territory and project military assets into foreign waters.

I notice the 50 cent posters and even Chinese NewsPapers have started dropping the term ‘Peaceful Rise’ and replaced it with ‘Peaceful Expansion’.

Nov 27, 2013 9:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Whatsgoingon wrote:

Nice power show sending B52s. We need to increase defense spending soon, ironically, by borrowing more from the Chinese. Who’s smart in this game? Do US people prefer affordable health care, or more power shows in Asia?

Nov 27, 2013 10:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
thebruce wrote:

wow – that first comment has to be paid propaganda…

so funny

Nov 27, 2013 10:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WarpFactor9 wrote:

@Mark Donners

Go take a cold shower man! While your`re in there we`ll take back a few of those States you took off other countries. Give Hawaii back to the Hawaiians etc etc. How`s the cleanup going in the Gulf??? How`s the radiation in Palau???

Nov 27, 2013 10:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LWrongHubbard wrote:

In response to new_york_loner:

The Japanese government does, in fact, share the cost of US bases on its soil


Nov 27, 2013 10:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GlobalJustice wrote:

I thought the U.S. was going to stay neutral on the issue. And now they’re defending Japan’s illegal claim over the islands. Another example of American hypocrisy and double standards.

Nov 27, 2013 11:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
zeddd wrote:

Niitaka yama nobore.

Nov 28, 2013 12:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.