Japan Caves to China on Senkaku Island Dispute

[AgentOrange]

I will get to the book, but I clearly cannot have bought it and read it in the past five minutes. Since you imply that you have, please supply the evidence presented in that book.

The Last Empire: The Final Days of the Soviet Union

By Serhii Plokhy

Section titled "Meeting in Moscow"

Page 21:

In reference to the (from the Russian POV) new spirit of friendship:

"There were also signs of growing cooperation in the international arena. The two presidents issued a joint communique on the Middle East, promising to work together to summon an international conference on regional security and cooperation. The Soviets would strive to bring the Palestinians to the table, and the Americans would do likewise with the Israelis. Both presidents would send their foreign secretaries to Israel, where the Us secretary of state, James Baker, would discuss the proposed conference while his Soviet counterpart, Aleksandr Bessmertnykh, negotiated the opening of full diplomatic relations between Israel and the USSR."

"Finally, there was a basic understanding on Cuba: in order to accommodate American demands, the Soviets promised to curtail their economic support of Fidel Castro's regime. There seemed to be no bilateral or international issue that the leaders of the two formerly hostile superpowers could not deal with and eventually resolve."

Page 22

In reference to informal talks with Bush Sr, with no pre-set agenda:

"For him (Gorbachev), they marked a turning point in the formulation of 'a joint policy of powers that had until only recently considered themselves mortal enemies and had in their enmity been prepared to push the entire world towards catastrophe.' If it were up to Gorbachev, the world would have become a Soviet-American condominium in which the two countries would not only live in peace but also resolve all international problems to their mutual satisfaction."

These are transcribed directly from the book.

 

[Genesis]

@TaiShang @Genesis @j20blackdragon @AgentOrange

It's hard for me to believe any of you are that naive. Please provide evidence, any evidence, that Russia was at any point objectively "pro-America," after the end of the Cold War. Seriously, any time from 1991 to the present. It can be anything from Russia voting with us on important issues in the UNSC (never happened), or burgeoning trade between our countries (never happened), or any other form of warming relations you choose. Good luck with that, I'll wait while you search.

I see a lot of harping about the reset, and how we lost Russia. OK. It should then be a simple matter to prove that between the reset and Crimea, Russia showed signs of pro-American behavior. Please supply evidence of this. Short of that, the idea that the US "lost Russia" is, for lack of a better term, delusional.

Is it really legitimate to compare Russia's grudging neutrality (the reality of the situation) with Vietnam's explicit pro-China stance before the oil rig?

Finally, I see a lot of talk about the US alienating Russia and then China picking up the scraps. Do you see the irony in this observation, or have you missed the point of this entire thread?

I never said Russia was pro America, but it was enough that Russia can live with America, but now it seems that has ended, Russia can no longer live with America.

I don't see Russia as a country that will help us in any conflicts, and they shouldn't. But Russia's purpose for China at least, is to distract America from the China theater.

You are suggesting that it's a zero sum, either they are an ally or not. But there's lots in between. Russia was neither pro nor against US in any real way before Ukraine, but now, that's not the case anymore.

If nothing else, a failure to get Russia to fall in line, further erodes the American prestige which at this point isn't bad for us. Russia won't end it there, with the BRICS bank and a few other initiatives, they should keep America rather busy. I never said defeat or anything like that, just busy is fine with me.

America is a empire the world has never seen, you don't grab a missile and destroy it, then the fallout would kill you too, but you get a chisel and chisel away at it, it may take long, but in the end the benefit is immense.


I do see the irony, but here's the thing, Russia was never entirely dependent on US, but Vietnam and most of ASEAN including Japan and Korea is. I'm not saying they won't live without China, but they be losing, the 1.3 billion market isn't as good as it sounds, but it's not bad either, whoever has a foothold in there has a foothold in the world.

You really think Vietnam wants to forgo China and go with America instead? As I said before, we are not going to stop you, but we don't have to help you, and that's really make or break in most cases for foreign firms in China.

So while America could have kept a world power at bay and just leave the little Russia has left, but instead, you must go do that to Ukraine, while Vietnam and rest of ASEAN and East Asia will remain in orbit, not because they want to but because we are in Asia.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Smart decision , tiny island is not worth bad ties with China , Chinese Tourist alone can bring 10 Billion to Japanese Economy

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I am not sure what is your idea of being "pro-America?" And who said Russia is "pro-China?"

That's your underlying intellectual fixture right there: The believe that for a country to be pro-US, it needs to be entirely subservient to its wishes regardless. So, there is the lack of understanding that a "partnership" can actually be "equal," based on mutual interest, non-intervention and non-alignment.

Yes, Russia was indeed very pro-US from the perspective of China's understanding of what a partnership means. For a general US audience, however, if there is no servitude, there is no partnership. Hence, the US partner with Japan, but in conflict with China, right? Because China is a normal nation whereas Japan is just a distant informal colony.

China is obviously happy with its relations with Russia no matter how lame it may seen to the Western analysts. It is, as often said, a new form of great power relationship, after all. That the US audience is surprised at the level of partnership between China and Russia without any taint of servitude is understandable but not justifiable.

This is exactly what China wants in terms of its relations with Japan. Probably that's why Japan, despite all the hot rhetoric, is never explicitly hostile to China. The article above obviously misses the point and paint the new possibility of a rapprochement as a chance for the Chinese side to twist the knife. That's a signature trait of US diplomacy which can buy allies and sells them at the first sign of a greater benefit. US did that with Saddam. Have done that with Nusra/ISIS terrorists.

I don't expect any allied country of the US to be our slave, as you imply. I simply expect a basis for alliance, i.e. shared security interests, at least in some major area. For example, Turkey is a member of NATO, and thus shares a responsibility for securing NATO members, but otherwise, Turkey has been a very difficult partner, opposing our war in Iraq, trying to improve relations with our enemies Syria and Iran, and making trouble for our other regional allies, Egypt and Israel. Do you now claim that the US disowns Turkey as an ally, simply because Turkey isn't completely subservient?

Come on, if you're going to make these claims, be thorough about looking into it.

I understand that China is happy with its relations with Russia. I never claimed otherwise. What I claim is that Russia may not be as happy with its relations with China as China is in its relations with Russia. Do you not see that you are doing exactly what you accused me of? Russia acts according to China's interests in many cases, so China now feels that Russia is an ally? SCO membership doesn't make for an alliance, and neither does a gas trade deal.

Believe it or not, the point of my comment, and introducing this article, was to point out precisely the opportunity that China has to bring Japan closer to its sphere of influence. I pointed out that this would be bad for the US, because it would be--and you agree. To then say that in claiming this would be bad for the US, I used this article as a weapon to attack China is beyond ridiculous. For some reason, you and a few others have a tendency to interpret every article I post as an attack on China, even when it is neutral or even pro-China. Such a reaction makes the conversation unproductive.

 

[Aepsilons]

A return to status quo ante bellum. Now let's see if China twists the knife, or instead takes the opportunity to try and draw Japan closer.

---

Japan Caves to China on Senkaku Island Dispute | The Diplomat

Japan Caves to China on Senkaku Island Dispute
To secure a meeting with Xi, Japanese PM Abe caved to China’s long-standing demand on the East China Sea dispute.

By Zachary Keck
October 18, 2014

In order to secure a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe agreed to a significant concession in Tokyo’s ongoing dispute with China over the Senkaku Islands, according to Japanese media outlets.

As Shannon noted earlier today on China Power, Japanese officials now expect there to be a brief meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe during next month’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Beijing. The meeting would be the first between the two heads of state since they took their current positions. It comes after a prolonged Japanese charm offensive towards China, which resulted in extensive behind-the-scenes negotiations aimed at securing a heads of state meeting at APEC.

The meeting, which Japanese officials acknowledged would be more symbolic than substantive, did not come cheaply for Japan. Indeed, if Japanese media reports are accurate, Tokyo appears to have caved on the major issue that prevented a heads-of-state meeting to date.

On Thursday, Mainichi reported that Japan made a three-prong proposal to China in order to secure the meeting between the two heads of states next month. According to the report, which cited “Japanese government sources,” Japan proposed that during his meeting with Xi, Abe would first reassert that the Senkaku Islands are an inherent part of Japanese territory, but then “acknowledge that China has a case as well” to the islands. He would then propose that China and Japan seek to settle the issue through mutual dialogue over time. None of this would be included in a joint statement or any other documents officially released after the summit meeting.

Still, if the report is accurate, Abe’s acknowledgement that a territorial dispute exists and proposal to settle the issue through mutual dialogue represent huge concessions to long-standing Chinese demands.

The Japanese government has always refused to acknowledge that a territorial dispute even exists with China over the Senkaku Islands, which Beijing refers to as the Diaoyu Islands. “There exists no issue of territorial sovereignty to be resolved concerning the Senkaku Islands,” Japan has said on numerous occasions.

China’s main precondition for agreeing to a heads of state meeting between President Xi and Prime Minister Abe has long been Japan’s acknowledgement that the territorial dispute exists. As Kyodo reported in June 2013, “Even after the change of government last December with the inauguration of the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, China has continued to call for Japan to acknowledge that a territorial dispute exists as a precondition for holding a summit.” That same report noted that Japan had refused to do this, and thus that a leadership summit appeared unlikely for the foreseeable future.

The two sides also publicly fought over the issue during the UN General Assembly meeting in September of last year. First, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said at a think tank speech before the UNGA opened that China was willing to reopen dialogue with Japan, but first “Japan needs to recognize that there is such a dispute. The whole world knows that there is a dispute.”

Prime Minister Abe appeared to respond to Wang in a press conference following his appearance at the UN summit. “Senkaku is an inherent part of the territory of Japan in light of historical facts and based upon international law, and the islands are under the valid control of Japan,” Abe said at the press conference. While Tokyo would not escalate the situation and wanted to open dialogue with China to avoid an armed conflict, Abe insisted that “Japan would not make a concession on our territorial sovereignty.”

Some in China are already taking the concession as a sign of Japanese weakness. Specifically, the Global Timesquoted Yang Bojiang, director of Japanese studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, as saying: “Abe is under economic pressure to resume talks with China and advance the bilateral relationship, so he has to show the world his willingness to talk.”

Excellent! Let us re shelf the issue and continue where both sides left off as per the 2008 East Sea Consensus. Let us develop the natural resources together, as originally planned.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

The Last Empire: The Final Days of the Soviet Union

By Serhii Plokhy

Section titled "Meeting in Moscow"

Page 21:

In reference to the (from the Russian POV) new spirit of friendship:

"There were also signs of growing cooperation in the international arena. The two presidents issued a joint communique on the Middle East, promising to work together to summon an international conference on regional security and cooperation. The Soviets would strive to bring the Palestinians to the table, and the Americans would do likewise with the Israelis. Both presidents would send their foreign secretaries to Israel, where the Us secretary of state, James Baker, would discuss the proposed conference while his Soviet counterpart, Aleksandr Bessmertnykh, negotiated the opening of full diplomatic relations between Israel and the USSR."

"Finally, there was a basic understanding on Cuba: in order to accommodate American demands, the Soviets promised to curtail their economic support of Fidel Castro's regime. There seemed to be no bilateral or international issue that the leaders of the two formerly hostile superpowers could not deal with and eventually resolve."

Page 22

In reference to informal talks with Bush Sr, with no pre-set agenda:

"For him (Gorbachev), they marked a turning point in the formulation of 'a joint policy of powers that had until only recently considered themselves mortal enemies and had in their enmity been prepared to push the entire world towards catastrophe.' If it were up to Gorbachev, the world would have become a Soviet-American condominium in which the two countries would not only live in peace but also resolve all international problems to their mutual satisfaction."
These are transcribed directly from the book.

Excellent, my sincere thanks for this. It does appear that there was the possibility of a warming relationship. How does Plohky support the idea that the US alienated, and thus lost, Russia? In the reviews I've read in the last few minutes, it seems like the US was working very hard to keep the USSR intact until the Ukrainian democracy movement became unavoidable, but I will defer to you on this matter.

 

[Kolaps]

Smart decision , tiny island is not worth bad ties with China , Chinese Tourist alone can bring 10 Billion to Japanese Economy

Knowing the behavior of Japanese politicians,

I don't think it will end well.

In less than an hour of a successful meeting...

Betrayal will come.


Yasukuni Shrine, Nuclear Weapon, or military base on DiaoYuTai...

Excellent! Let us re shelf the issue and continue where both sides left off as per the 2008 East Sea Consensus. Let us develop the natural resources together, as originally planned.

No No No!

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I never said Russia was pro America, but it was enough that Russia can live with America, but now it seems that has ended, Russia can no longer live with America.

I don't see Russia as a country that will help us in any conflicts, and they shouldn't. But Russia's purpose for China at least, is to distract America from the China theater.

You are suggesting that it's a zero sum, either they are an ally or not. But there's lots in between. Russia was neither pro nor against US in any real way before Ukraine, but now, that's not the case anymore.

If nothing else, a failure to get Russia to fall in line, further erodes the American prestige which at this point isn't bad for us. Russia won't end it there, with the BRICS bank and a few other initiatives, they should keep America rather busy. I never said defeat or anything like that, just busy is fine with me.

America is a empire the world has never seen, you don't grab a missile and destroy it, then the fallout would kill you too, but you get a chisel and chisel away at it, it may take long, but in the end the benefit is immense.


I do see the irony, but here's the thing, Russia was never entirely dependent on US, but Vietnam and most of ASEAN including Japan and Korea is. I'm not saying they won't live without China, but they be losing, the 1.3 billion market isn't as good as it sounds, but it's not bad either, whoever has a foothold in there has a foothold in the world.

You really think Vietnam wants to forgo China and go with America instead? As I said before, we are not going to stop you, but we don't have to help you, and that's really make or break in most cases for foreign firms in China.

So while America could have kept a world power at bay and just leave the little Russia has left, but instead, you must go do that to Ukraine, while Vietnam and rest of ASEAN and East Asia will remain in orbit, not because they want to but because we are in Asia.

Perhaps I see through a different prism, but Russia was certainly against the US in tangible ways after the Cold War ended. It continued to support our enemies in Syria and Iran, and it made trouble for us in the UNSC over many, many issues. I thus cannot agree that Russia "neither pro nor against US in any real way before Ukraine," but perhaps this is a matter of perspective.

Regarding the US "empire," I've agreed before that this is a simple matter of economics. As China displaces the US economically, it will assume the greater power, just as the US displaced the British Empire before it, not through colonial holdings, but through economic power.

Finally, I have never argued that Vietnam would dump China in exchange for friendship with the US. Even China doesn't demand that of its friend Pakistan. But the US does have an opening now, militarily speaking, that it didn't have before. We are already discussing the sale of new weapons and weapons systems to Vietnam. We have stood behind Japan's efforts to do the same with Vietnam. Certainly this doesn't help China, does it?

I agree the US is stretched thin, and the Ukraine crisis does not help us. But given our poor diplomatic relations ever since Iraq, and our nearly non-existent trade relations, it's really more of the same between us and Russia. The difference is that Russia is now suffering terribly from the sanctions regime, which forces it to sign unfavorable deals with China. Good for China, and I congratulate China for its strategic acumen in this regard. But not so good for Russia, no matter how it's spun.

 

[Aepsilons]

Meeting of what?

An economy cooperation with China?


What a waste of time!

An hour after the meeting, Abe will fly to Japan, go and pray at YASUKUNI Shrine.

Then declare Japan is a peaceful nuclear power and will use it only to the EVIL country like CHINA and KOREA!


Btw, nice move ABE!

ALL Taiwanese love you!

Lol

 

[TaiShang]

Thank you for the response.

I don't expect any allied country of the US to be our slave, as you imply. I simply expect a basis for alliance, i.e. shared security interests, at least in some major area. For example, Turkey is a member of NATO, and thus shares a responsibility for securing NATO members, but otherwise, Turkey has been a very difficult partner, opposing our war in Iraq, trying to improve relations with our enemies Syria and Iran, and making trouble for our other regional allies, Egypt and Israel. Do you now claim that the US disowns Turkey as an ally, simply because Turkey isn't completely subservient?

Still, this does not change the fact that, what the US understands from an alliance is, first and foremost, a subservient status of the other side to the greater interests of the US. There is no idea of equal partnership in the US book. This is simply does not exist in its nature.

So, whatever shared security interests you mention, it is at times only the interests of the US as propagated to be interests of all -- a typical case of false consciousness which the US excels at promoting.

Turkey's accession to the NATO is completely a Cold War produce. You needed to stop the Red Wave by encircling the USSR with a reactionary Green Belt. ISIS is one of the out of wedlock children of this convenient partnership, as a matter of fact.

For the Iraq War veto, well, you have punished Turkey severely, by allowing the radical Islamists to cut down on the independent-minded generals, intellectuals and academicians (who were the actual architects of the veto which the government had adamantly opposed) by using the radical cleric you host in Pennsylvania as a fifth column inside Turkey's judiciary and key ministries.

Currently, Turkey has been doing all it can to destabilize Syria, your common enemy, and, as for Iran, other than some corruption involved by some Turkish ministries and Iranian elites that favor the business going on between Iran and Turkey out of pure selfish interest, there is no strategic affinity/compatibility between Iran and Turkey. For one, Iran supports secular Assad, Turkey's sworn enemy.

Thus, the US idea of partnership/alliance is not less dangerous than climbing over a crocodile to swim across a river. You can't simply trust them. Putin does not trust US more than he would trust his domesticated snow leopards.

I understand that China is happy with its relations with Russia. I never claimed otherwise. What I claim is that Russia may not be as happy with its relations with China as China is in its relations with Russia. Do you not see that you are doing exactly what you accused me of? Russia acts according to China's interests in many cases, so China now feels that Russia is an ally? SCO membership doesn't make for an alliance, and neither does a gas trade deal.

First, this is an assumption. Second, Russia knows that, even though it decides to cancel the oil contract and convert all Remninbi to USD, China will not seek a coup against Putin or provide logistical support to Ukrainian Nazi groups. This is the essential feature of China's strategic partnership with Russia: Non-intervention and respect for sovereignty.

Other than this, partners might be unhappy about this or that. That's the nature of all relationships. There might be extensive power/wealth struggle even between brothers in a family. No body is rosy about a partnership higher than Elbrus or wider than Siberia.

As long as there is the respect and non-intervention, who would expect more? Once these parameters are set, then, there is a huge room for development, hence you have the SCO and BRICS and the likes. If one day one of the deals are broken, the underlying essence will remain nonetheless. That's what is really important. That's what the US lacks. US has no respect for others and thinks it can play with them: You can be rewarded or you can be punished. And you can anytime anticipate a color revolution orchestrated by the US out of certain selfish strategic points, not out of principle.

 

[AgentOrange]

Excellent, my sincere thanks for this. It does appear that there was the possibility of a warming relationship. How does Plohky support the idea that the US alienated, and thus lost, Russia? In the reviews I've read in the last few minutes, it seems like the US was working very hard to keep the USSR intact until the Ukrainian democracy movement became unavoidable, but I will defer to you on this matter.

Anytime. Plokhy cited domestic American politics as one factor that helped to alienate Russia. Bush had to appease the numerous vehemently anti-Russian politicians in his own party and during his election bid the language changed. Privately, Bush Sr. was probably still open to cooperation with the USSR/Russia but publicly he had to characterize the end of the Cold War as one of conqueror vs conquered and some of his subsequent policy changes reflected that. Obviously the Russians were miffed.

I've always found that interesting, btw, how American foreign policy can be so disjointed, seeing as how ideological differences between parties can cause a complete 180 on certain policy initiatives, depending on who won the most recent election.

 

[Kolaps]

I don't expect any allied country of the US to be our slave, as you imply.

I hope all US allies to be slave-like countries.

That is the true ally and reliable friend.

Turkey has been a very difficult partner, opposing our war in Iraq, trying to improve relations with our enemies Syria and Iran, and making trouble for our other regional allies, Egypt and Israel. Do you now claim that the US disowns Turkey as an ally, simply because Turkey isn't completely subservient?

The soft stand of US against their own allies will cost US dearly.

US and Turkey are never equal in the first place, and Turkey must know their place in this relationship.

Time to create a coup there.

I prefer a Green color Ribbon for the movement.

 

[TaiShang]

The difference is that Russia is now suffering terribly from the sanctions regime, which forces it to sign unfavorable deals with China.

You need to prove that Russia signs "unfavorable deals with China."

The details of the pipeline agreement have not been disclosed. All there is is speculation. What else? The Silk Road project? The Beijing-Moscow HSR project? China selling agricultural/dairy products to Russia because of EU sanctions?

What concrete evidence do you have to prove that Russia does sign agreements that are unfavorable to its national interests?

 

[IsaacNewton]

I think china and japan needs to put away the disputed island issue for at least 100 years.

 

[TaiShang]

Anytime. Plokhy cited domestic American politics as one factor that helped to alienate Russia. Bush had to appease the numerous vehemently anti-Russian politicians in his own party and during his election bid the language changed. Privately, Bush Sr. was probably still open to cooperation with the USSR/Russia but publicly he had to characterize the end of the Cold War as one of conqueror vs conquered and some of his subsequent policy changes reflected that. Obviously the Russians were miffed.

I've always found that interesting, btw, how American foreign policy can be so disjointed, seeing as how ideological differences between parties can cause a complete 180 on certain policy initiatives, depending on who won the most recent election.

Indeed. This reminds me of the Georgian War.