Japanese PM Links Falklands War with Senkaku Dispute

Japan’s Prime Minister looks to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for inspiration in the territorial conflict with China over the islets in the East China Sea

  • Share
  • Read Later
Issei Kato / Reuters

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe delivers his policy speech at the lower house of parliament in Tokyo on Feb. 28, 2013

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose country is in conflict with China over islets in the East China Sea, cited former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s reflections on the 1982 Falkland Islands war to stress the importance of the rule of law at sea. During a speech to parliament on Thursday, Abe said Japan’s national interests “lie in making the seas, which are the foundation of our nation’s existence, completely open, free and peaceful,” the Telegraph reported.

(MORE: Japan Boosts Defense Spending, More or Less)

The Japanese Prime Minister, who took office in December, quoted Thatcher’s memoirs reflecting the Falkland Islands war, in which she said Britain was defending the fundamental principle that international law should prevail over the use of force, according to Reuters.

“Looking back at the Falkland Islands conflict, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said the following: ‘The rule of international law must triumph over exertion of force,’” the Wall Street Journal quoted Abe as saying to his fellow lawmakers.

Thatcher rallied Britain to support the 74-day armed conflict, which started when Argentine troops landed on the Falkland Islands on April 2, 1982. It drew skepticism at the time from other British leaders — and some British allies, who didn’t think the territory was worth defending after Argentina seized control, according to the Wall Street Journal. The conflict killed about 650 Argentine and 255 British troops.

(MORE: History Threatens Repeat in Renewed Pacific War)

Abe continued in his own words: “The rule of law at sea. I want to appeal to international society that in modern times changes to the status quo by the use of force will justify nothing.” Ties between Tokyo and Beijing have been shaky after the Japanese government last September bought three of the five islands in the East China Sea, known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China. The islands are controlled by Japan but also claimed by China.

(MORE: Chinese View of Islands Conflict: ‘Make It Quick’)

An escalation in tensions in the territorial dispute has raised fears of an unintended military incident near the islands, where both countries’ militaries have each started to mobilize in the surrounding area, the Wall Street Journal pointed out. The U.S. has said the islets fall under a U.S.-Japan security pact, but “Washington is keen to avoid a clash in the economically vital region,” the Telegraph reported. Abe reiterated in his speech that the islands are Japanese territory and urged Beijing not to escalate tensions. However, he added that Sino-Japanese relations were vital for Japan and that he was always willing to a discussion.

(MORE: Old Questions and Few Answers as Japan’s Abe and Obama Discuss Asia Security Tensions)

32 comments
stanley1313
stanley1313

u.s isn't afraid. they just want an excuse to show china, that they r the big dog on the block. china been trying to bull country like taiwan and the philipenes  .by claim that all island  belong to them, but in true their emperor collapse and loss all those territories 700 to 600 years ago. it's like saying that the carribean  island belong to  the u.s just because they r in water mean we own them.. china lose claim along time now live with it. from my view there r japanese structure on the island only,that said to me that they have a claim their for over a hundred now. people lived their once but force by the us during the second world war. and i hear that island is on continetal  shelf is a joke. because japan is on the same shelf itself .they are the chain island that stretch from japan, not china . china is still piss about wwii, japan's invasion of their country that all.if china wants a fight. we have plenty of reason to fight china because of their stealing of u.s secrets, cyber attacks on computer  system in the u.s like the white house and other government agencies too.too me that is an act of war in itself .now china go away and be good neighbor . thank you.

Kitty
Kitty

I have a question to TIME editors:

Why did you erase this link i posted the other day?

Afraid of Washington/CIA?

Everybody watch this thread:

http://eastbound88.com/showthread.php/12227-Map-on-Senkaku-Other-country ⑦尖閣諸島が記載されたその他の国々の地図

It's Washington who intentionally created and worsening this dispute!!!

You erase this post again????

jdisturbpeace
jdisturbpeace

Please read p.61 of Second World War 2012 by Antony Beevor to see how Japan brought "progress" to China.

By repeatedly raping 12 year old girls and 70 years old women and then thrust bamboo spikes up their viginas,

jdisturbpeace
jdisturbpeace

Japan is nothing but the most capable of sophist

To compare Kaukalan island with Dioayu is the height of sophistry.

First the Faukland are inhabiited now with most Brits whiereas diaoyu is uninhabited territory of China.

Just like Abe's assertion that Japanese mass rape, murder and mutilations in Asia was an attempt to bring progress to the region.

I wonder Abe is really sane.

Kitty
Kitty

@jdisturbpeace

Read these:

http://eastbound88.com/showthread.php/11400-China-Taiwan-s-maps-and-books-before-1970-尖閣諸島⑤中国&台湾の古い地図

http://eastbound88.com/showthread.php/11428-China-Taiwan-s-post-war-maps-and-books-on-Senkaku 尖閣諸島⑥戦後の中国&台湾の地図・文献

http://eastbound88.com/showthread.php/12227-Map-on-Senkaku-Other-country ⑦尖閣諸島が記載されたその他の国々の地図

(Time editor may erase some of this post again)

JasonBras
JasonBras

@Kitty @jdisturbpeace can someone please delete this?  this is an ENGLISH site.  i don't understand these mumble jumble alien languge....

jdisturbpeace
jdisturbpeace

This is a most farfetched comparison between Chinese diaoyu and Fauklan islands.

England was not a defested nation in wWII and has no obligation to obseve the Potsdam treaty.

Japan hss to obey Potsdam treaty as it was a defeated nation in WWII

Stanley
Stanley

Diaoyu / Senkaku Islands, geographically part of Taiwan Island, are a group of islands standing on the continental shelf, separated from the Ryukyu Islands by a deep underwater trench.  China's earliest record of the Diaoyu Islands can be traced back to the Sui Dynasty, more than 1,000 years ago.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's arguments are nonsense !!!

GraciaAlbertol
GraciaAlbertol

Very interesting  how big is the nonsense of Japan's PM about this islands and the way the Prime Minister linked to Malvinas (Falklands) let me say Stanley that just the same  as the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands the Malvinas islands are a group of islands standing on the continental shelf of Argentina and 8.000 miles from the british islands ,but the british say that Malvinas(Falkland) are british islands ,just a look at a map to see the truth, the big difference with the Malvinas issue is that China is the rising superpower of the world, and Argentina is only a modest  8th larger country G-20 member.    

alan74
alan74

The british don't say they are British Islands - they say they belong to the people that live there - in some cases longer than Argentina has been a country.

outspoken
outspoken

Does  Japan has  a  independent  voice ?   Japan  lost  its  independence  during  WW II , Now it is US   colony nothing  more.  China

should talk  to USA  not Japan.

rorywong654
rorywong654

@outspoken But US is too chicken to admit the mistake made after WWII.US got the agenda to make the most out of any conflict she created around the world

GraciaAlbertol
GraciaAlbertol

DavidWhiteKnight - Alan 74:

 Self determination principle is applied to peoples not to a handful of human beings(as is the case of the few islanders of Malvinas) is the way that is accepted in the international community for a matter of common sense you cannot extend the idea of self determination to a group of a thousand people and this is the mood of that principle in the world now,but the problem of Malvinas is considered in UN as a problem of territorial integrity not self determination, you can argue about that but in that wayit  is seen by diplomats.Part of the support is rethoric part not but the future of the Malvinas islands will be decided by the Latin American neighbourhood not by a decadent colonial european  power wishing to keep an outdated colonial outpost in Latin American Islands.We remember how much the people of HongKong wanted to be Chines and how much the Chagosian people wanted to be taken out of their land so ¿What are the democratic and humanitarian principles of the uk?.The position of USA is more or less as you said and also calling both parts to solve peacefully the problem and offering an intermediation,part of the USA problem is that old idea of Mr.Monroe America for the Americans not for the british

alan74
alan74

A handful of human beings deserve the same respect as the biggest countries - plenty of small countries survive because they are not intimitated/invaded by larger neighbours. Part of Hong Kong was actually leased from mainland China and the lease was due to run out. The Chagos people should be allowed to go back - but that is really upto the USA. I supported them at the time - let's be honest it was the Americans who wanted to build the base there. Surely if you support them you should support the Falkland Islanders! The democratic and humanitarian principles of the UK are as good as any other country - no better no worse. What of Argentina's democartic and humanitarian principles? America for the Americans - what about French Guyana in South America - a department of France? You should realise that no British govt. will go against the falkland Islanders until they vote for a change. But with Argentina with its aggressive nature that is not going to happen.

GraciaAlbertol
GraciaAlbertol

The Malvinas (Falklands)problem is for international diplomats a territorial integrity dispute, not a self determination one.I respect and appreciate your opinion but the territorial integrity of Argentina is at stake and so is considered in the UN and in Latin America,a solution may be achieve with full respect to the islanders interest(not easy but possible).HongKong was surrendered against the will of islanders far beyond the part leased.Only the uk is guilty about the infamy with Chagosian do not blame USA.Nor Argentina or Uk are better or worse than any other,notice that Guyana was welcome by Latin America not the british invaders in Malvinas in 1833 or 2012 that is not a minor thing.The islanders are always welcome to Argentina, think big, lets Life a chance and start a new bright day,down here in the south. 

GraciaAlbertol
GraciaAlbertol

Is very interesting how after this exchange of thoughts, like a time to fix and keep each one positions and thanks to Time there is one thing about what I can agree completely with you, talk is the only course of action, I suppose that the only thing lacking here  is the idea or initiative that is still to be said in low voice and for the sake of Life overcoming hate to start, at least, something really new and positive in this long dispute, I suppose that is not easy but also is not impossible, I think you  clearly see that the problem is far more bigger than the islanders ( Real politik, big countries, natural resources ,antartica ,georgias,etc, etc) but may be that the still to be said idea could come from the islanders minds working out something new,seems to me that seen the level of both govts.(Arg.&UK)we will see more of the same from them.One last Thing Mr.Timmerman is foreing minister of Argentina not my f.m. 

alan74
alan74

What ever I think, whatever you think, the only people that matter are the Falkland Islanders. Your foreign minister, Timmerman was stupid when in London. He could have talked to the Islanders. Through talk comes peace. Probably at first the atmosphere would have been cold. Over years it would have improved. Talk is the only course of action - but I am afraid you have to include the Islanders. It is their choice.

GraciaAlbertol
GraciaAlbertol

To answer your question, is absolutely correct to say that the United Kingdom forcibly deported the Chagosian people, they did not left, they were forcibly deported, is not my opinion, is historical fact,about what is behind of that UK decision I can only suppose you are wright,but I was not there when in London was decided the tragic fate of the Chagosian.I did not like the facts of 1982 since the very beginning believe me I want a peceful living for all human kind included of course the islanders.Regardless of anyone opinion,seen that the british empire is gone the Malvinas (Falklands) problem one day should be settle out in a negotiation as wise and peacefully as decent humans can reach, I honestly think any other way is wishful thinking.

alan74
alan74

Regarding the Chagos Islands,why did you think the Inhabitants left - the USA wanted a base in the Indian Ocean which did not have potential protestors -the Uk was retreating from the Indian Ocean in the 70's. You should get your facts correct - the UK was guilty but after Vietnam USA was very worried about residents around their bases. The UK did not and does not have enough military power to base fleets/forces there - only the USA. As a said the inhabitants should go back. Argentina itself is an implanted population - I don't think Kirchner/Timmermann are indiginous South American Indians - I forgot Argentina killed most of them (Conquest of the Desert etc.). Why is South America called Latin America - presumably most of the inhabitants are implanted from Latin Europe. The hypocracy of countries is incedible. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands - the Falkland Islands were living peacefully. Regarding Libya, I think probably the Libyans were quite pleased to get rid of Gadaffi. Iraq / Afganistan, I agree we should never have gone there. I did think that even Argentina had nominal forces there. Within a week the Falkland Islanders will give their views - that is the only view that counts.

GraciaAlbertol
GraciaAlbertol

The treatement of Diego Garcia was an remains a shameful disgrace for the uk,I dont see why for the USA because they arrived after the uk forcibly deported the inhabitans in use of the uk  military power.The claim from Argentina is as well based as to be backed for a vast majority  of countries in United Nations after detailed study of history and international laws,details you will understand are far beyond what can be said here,simply said the falklands belong to Argentina ,were seized for uk in 1833 in a time of british colonial expansion ,settlers from Argentina were replaced by and implanted population up to this day,that is why no country in Latin America,to say the least, back the british. Uk thinks that force gets what you want,remember war in Iraq,Afganistan,Libia and so on is Uk  killing there not Argentina.

alan74
alan74

Hong Kong residents never had a plebiscite to remain with the UK The issues are different anyway - the inhabitants of Hong Kong were chinese -Even discounting self determination (which is the major issue) Argentina's claim from 1833 is vague - UK had inhabitants before that. The UK could not invade an island they had settled in the 1700's. Regarding the Chagos Islands, the issue is with the courts (not just UK courts). Of course the Americans had a say in the Chagos Islands - it is not a UK base there. If I had anything to do with it I want them to go back.  There is no reason in International Law (as I understand it) for Argentina to have sovereignty over the Falland Islands - If France claimed UK are you saying they have a case(as some Normans once settled here)?  The whole idea of countries claiming other countries belongs to the last century. 'Territorial Integrity' regarding the Falklands is your problem - no one elses because thats the way you see it - its how you define/see 'teritorial integrity'. You would have thought that in the 21st century you would realise that good relations with the falklands may bring benefits for both the Falklands and for Argentina. But Argentina still has the mindset of a military dictatorship - bullying/force gets you what you want.

GraciaAlbertol
GraciaAlbertol

With  the higher of respect to Japan's PM and Time's readers,seems to me that Mr. PM should reflect a litle more about history and then stop  saying such kind of nonsense. What kind of rule of law had in mind his conutry when decided to atack the USA base of Pearl Harbor , just as an example not to remind the atrocities commited by Japan in China in WW2.I can say about the Malvinas(falklands) unsettle dispute that is a completely different problem with a colonial british outpost in Argentina's islands 8.000 miles away from uk and United Nations saying that is a disputed land with all Latin American countries saying that is part of Argentine republic and the USA position saying more or less the same that the  UN .Maybe  the imperial past of Japan is similar to the imperial past of the uk and both, now in their decadence are  begging for the rule of law that they never respected in the past, this specially in the case of Japan because is facing the rising power of China and the uk with its growing isolation about the dispute Malvinas (falklands) islands.

DavidWhiteknight
DavidWhiteknight

@GraciaAlbertol

"with all Latin American countries saying that is part of Argentine republic"

Errr, I don't think you could be more wrong about that.


Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/03/01/japanese-pm-links-falklands-war-with-senkaku-dispute/#ixzz2MOfSeq9A

GraciaAlbertol
GraciaAlbertol

No,I am not wrong  David, take a look at the position of any country in Latin America and you could see that what I said is true.In fact in the whole America the few that don't say that are the comonwealth countries as expected and the position of the USA is the same position of UN resolutions with even  a secretary of state refering the islands as Malvinas(Mrs.CLINTON).More China is backing the position of Argentina and recently India and a group of african contries adopted a position similar to the position of the USA. 

alan74
alan74

If you ask most democratic countries in the world 'Do you believe in self determination?' they will support UK. My undestanding of the US position is to support the status-quo. No country in the world will actually help you -it is all rhetoric - even from your friends. Most people around the world are the same - just getting on with their lives - they may have a view one way or the other, but they will not get involved. The UK will not surrender the Falkland Islands against their will - it is not in the make up of the UK  

alan74
alan74

Also Falkland Islands have people living there (for generations) who want to stay there and live as Falkland Islanders. The UK just happend to guarantee defence as a colonial power, Argentina(conquest of the desert etc.), tries to ignore them. The Falkland Islands will never be ruled by Argentina, as long as the Falkland Islanders wish it to remain that way. Just because you put an Argentinian flag over the Falkland Islands and call them Malvinas does not mean you can ignore the people that live there. If the Argentians had any sense they would be giving the Falkland Islanders free travel, health care etc. But no Argentina is a bully - no difference between this and Nazi Germany. Falkland Islands are hundreds of miles from Argentina - so what. That means nothing - French Guyana, Saint pierre/Miquelon near Canada are French Islands/American Samoa, Guam are American.

RufusTrotman
RufusTrotman

Of course Japan can count on the support of at least part of the US government, however going by the Falkland Islands experience Japan can be expected to be thoroughly shafted by a different piece of the US government at the same time.


Then, decades later when they suggest that this latter part might want to revise its position slightly, they can expect to be given a response that is so ambiguous that ordinary people can't understand a word of it, while august members of the US press refer to them as "needy and insecure".

vivian02
vivian02

@RufusTrotman
Hi! I am Vivian!
how are you! hope you are fine and in perfect condition of health. I went
through your profile and i read it and took intersest in it,if you don't
mind i will like you to write me on this ID (vivian202micheal@yahoo.co.jp)
hope to hear from you soon, I will be waiting for your mail because i have
something VERY important to tell you.
Lots of love from madamVivian!

duduong
duduong

Framing the issue with bad analogies is the standard technique of a scoundrel who is trying to obscure the facts, so let me recount the facts, once more:

During WWII, the official US position on Okinawa, not to mention the contested island which was officially part of Taiwan throughout Japanese rule, was that it should be returned to China. This was announced several times by Roosevelt, but changed into ambiguous reticence once the Communists began to take over mainland China. Eventually, the peace treaty only mentioned the return of Taiwan AND surrounding islands to ROC. The disputed island was somehow kept within American administration (primarily because of concerns over the weakness of Chiang's navy), together with Okinawa; this was the first time in history that the island was not ruled as part of Taiwan.

When Japan offered Nixon $2B to buy back Okinawa in 1970, it saw an opportunity to take advantage of the ambiguity and asked to have the island included in the deal. Money talked and Kissinger came up with the idea that the "administration rights" could be transferred without any implications on ownership (aka sovereignty) . This was obviously bogus, as the transfer was not blessed by the rightful owner. The ROC government and the people in Taiwan promptly protested to no avail. This was during the cold war and two years before the warming of relations between Nixon and Mao, after all.

The only difference between then and now is that Japan's navy and air force no longer outclass China's. So for the first time in 43 years, at least one entity on the Chinese side has the muscle to back up their claim. Falkland was occupied by the British for nearly 200 years, while Japan had this island for only 43. This makes a world of difference because international laws require 150 years of continuous control. Now, both Taiwan and China view the US as a trustee who had subsequently fenced their property to a thieving bully. If the US insists on siding with Japan, it will do so without the moral high ground, but moral high ground does not seem to be a particularly interesting concern to the Americans these days.

vivian02
vivian02


Hi! I am Vivian!
how are you! hope you are fine and in perfect condition of health. I went
through your profile and i read it and took intersest in it,if you don't
mind i will like you to write me on this ID (vivian202micheal@yahoo.co.jp)
hope to hear from you soon, I will be waiting for your mail because i have
something VERY important to tell you.
Lots of love from madamVivian!

vivian02
vivian02

@duduong
Hi! I am Vivian!
how are you! hope you are fine and in perfect condition of health. I went
through your profile and i read it and took intersest in it,if you don't
mind i will like you to write me on this ID (vivian202micheal@yahoo.co.jp)
hope to hear from you soon, I will be waiting for your mail because i have
something VERY important to tell you.
Lots of love from madamVivian!