Panetta: Senkakus under Japan-U.S. Security Treaty

[ardo]

The United States has warned China that the Senkaku Islands were covered by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty...

Visiting U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Chinese National Defense Minister Liang Guanglie in Beijing that the security treaty obligating the United States to come to the defense of Japan would be applied to the Senkakus, which are called the Diaoyu Islands in China.



A high-ranking U.S. government official in a position to know the details of the Sept. 18 meeting between Panetta and Liang confirmed to The Asahi Shimbun what the U.S. defense secretary said.

The source added that Liang expressed China's strong opposition to having the security treaty applied to the Senkakus.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201209210061

Panetta's remark reinforces the stance of the United States that it considers the Senkakus under the scope of the security pact, because it is under the effective control of Japan.

Panetta's comment apparently was an attempt to directly inform Chinese officials that Washington was not changing its position on national security in East Asia and to ensure that Beijing did not take any drastic action over the Senkakus.




CHINA DOWNPLAYS U.S. WARNING



Meanwhile, China was doing its best to downplay any possible negative effects from the Panetta remark.

The People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, ran a commentary in its Sept. 20 edition that said, "The U.S.-Japan Security Treaty is a byproduct of the Cold War era and should not damage the interests of third parties, including China."

The piece went on to say, "Any nation that seeks to interfere in the Diaoyu Islands issue will experience a loss of their interests."

There are some Chinese officials who feel the United States was behind the nationalization of the Senkakus by Japan.

One Chinese government source said, "As long as we contain the actions of the United States, Japan will stop its provocative actions."

[megacyberobot]

We don't want wars

[EzikialRage]

Originally Posted by ardo

The United States has warned China that the Senkaku Islands were covered by the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty...

Visiting U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Chinese National  Defense Minister Liang Guanglie in Beijing that the security treaty  obligating the United States to come to the defense of Japan would be  applied to the Senkakus, which are called the Diaoyu Islands in China.



A high-ranking U.S. government official in a position to know the  details of the Sept. 18 meeting between Panetta and Liang confirmed to  The Asahi Shimbun what the U.S. defense secretary said.
         
The source added that Liang expressed China's strong opposition to having the security treaty applied to the Senkakus.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201209210061

Panetta's remark reinforces the stance of the United States that it  considers the Senkakus under the scope of the security pact, because it  is under the effective control of Japan.
         
Panetta's comment apparently was an attempt to directly  inform Chinese officials that Washington was not changing its position  on national security in East Asia and to ensure that Beijing did not  take any drastic action over the Senkakus.




CHINA DOWNPLAYS U.S. WARNING


                  
Meanwhile, China was doing its best to downplay any possible negative effects from the Panetta remark.
         
The People's Daily, the mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist  Party, ran a commentary in its Sept. 20 edition that said, "The  U.S.-Japan Security Treaty is a byproduct of the Cold War era and should  not damage the interests of third parties, including China."
         
The piece went on to say, "Any nation that seeks to interfere  in the Diaoyu Islands issue will experience a loss of their interests."
         
There are some Chinese officials who feel the United States was behind the nationalization of the Senkakus by Japan.
         
One Chinese government source said, "As long as we contain  the actions of the United States, Japan will stop its provocative  actions."

Its good that the US sticks up for its allies. Although I have to wonder if the US will go through with any attacks should China decides to see if the US is bluffing. The US buys a lot of goods from China and as a result has made China a bit more wealthier, meaning they have more cash to better their military.

[tommy18]

The U.S is in a very difficult position, China and U.S trade economically while U.S is responsible for japan's protection as they can't attack other country's since it is part of the U.S and japan Treaty.

So it ether protect Japan and lose are trading partner or let china attack and we do nothing.

[vian85putra]

Well, what do you expect?
It is just one more war for them

[elgringo14]

This thread definitely needed some cleanout, the next one to post propaganda or personal attacks will get a kick in the nuts.

Remember kids: WAR IS NOT AN ANSWER

[alibarbar]

I am not a kid.
But honestly, I wish there is a war(though I live in this Area). At least that can clearout who owns the island. There are too many versions of history that had been told by Chinese and Japanese, they all got their intuitive views. Let's cut the crap out and go for a ture fight, then something will work out. Don't you think?

But, if there's a bet for if there will be a war, I would pull all my money from my packet and put them in "no war" side. The U.S. will finally make all these like something never happened, but the issues between China and Japan is(will be) still there. Thus, they make out some profit out of two countries.

Peace

[Starbeeze]

Originally Posted by alibarbar

I am not a kid.
But honestly, I wish there is a war(though I live in this Area). At least that can clearout who owns the island. There are too many versions of history that had been told by Chinese and Japanese, they all got their intuitive views. Let's cut the crap out and go for a ture fight, then something will work out. Don't you think?

But, if there's a bet for if there will be a war, I would pull all my money from my packet and put them in "no war" side. The U.S. will finally make all these like something never happened, but the issues between China and Japan is(will be) still there. Thus, they make out some profit out of two countries.

Peace

A war would further the animosity between China and Japan creating future conflicts. As both countries rely on each other economically, the short term fall out would be massive damage to the east Asian economy and the global economy further down the road. A fight would do nothing to aid the situation.

[megatroll]

Originally Posted by Starbeeze

A war would further the animosity between China and Japan creating future conflicts. As both countries rely on each other economically, the short term fall out would be massive damage to the east Asian economy and the global economy further down the road. A fight would do nothing to aid the situation.

I will try to desist from commenting on political issues, as the one sided views people are conditioned to tend to paint a black and white picture in their minds.

But I will say this: There are certain political and economical factions who actually DO profit greatly from conflict, regardless of location or national borders. I recide in a place that is heavily concerned in what they deem diplomacy and the alleged promotion of peace, while dealing with dictators and warlords at the backdoor. It literally doesn't matter which faction fights for what purpose. The only thing that counts is to destroy, destabilize and eventually pick up the shards of the aftermath, again making profit with ballgag-contracts to rebuild infrastructure. It's all a big game of chess.

There hasn't been a single war in human history that wasn't based on land, recources or slave labour. NOBODY cares about us, the proletarian working class. It doesn't matter if you turn East or West. Political choice is nothing but an illusion. The two party system in the US is the same as the parliament in Europe, as the communist party in China, as Putin for the Russian Federation. We are simply conditioned to perceive "the other side" as wrong, while in reality the only ones we should fight are those who turn us into hyper nationalist tools, who go to war to defend artificial borders and values that do not exist. We as individuals are equal, but as "countrymen" we are opposed to each other.

This ridiculous "island dispute" is nothing but a puppet show for right wingers to distract the masses from what's really important.

There is nothing to be proud of and nothing to hate.
Nothing to defend and nothing to fight.
It's a simple matter of freeing our own minds.

Now feel free to kick me in the nuts.

[ezepietro]

Originally Posted by alibarbar

But honestly, I wish there is a war(though I live in this Area). At least that can clearout who owns the island.

They should give the island to Argentina, problem solved
after all, we lost(in war) our Falklands island