The other day Japan Times published not only a totally imbecile writing under the title above, but also the following cartoon replica of the mixture of the US/Russian/Byzantine/Habsburg/German/ coat of arms.
Japan Times calls it Senkaku Arms.
We knew already, that the pot-smoking gaijin/gringo reporters at Japan Times have the IQ of a bedroom slipper and that their awareness of history and international legal relations is on the level of an Appalachian hillbilly; what we do not understand is what Japan Times President Yukiko Ogasawara with her father Publisher T. Ogasawara is getting at.
Are they indicating that the Senkaku- Takeshima- Kurile- etc islands are not Japanese??? If so, they should draw the consequences and inform the readers what that means. Namely the abolition of Treaty of San Francisco.
Also called the San Francisco Peace Treaty between Japan and the Allied Powers was officially signed by 48 nations on September 8, 1951 and came into force on April 28, 1952. It replaced the McArthur borderline between Japan, Korea and China clearly defining both the Senkaku´s, Takeshima and other islands as Japanese.
Due to the "allied" USA-Soviet induced/sponsored civil war in China and Korea neither were part in the peace treaty but the Soviet Union was.
From the start of the conference the Soviet Union expressed vigorous and vocal opposition to the draft treaty text prepared by the United States and the United Kingdom. The Soviet delegation made several unsuccessful procedural attempts to stall the proceedings.The Soviet Union's objections were detailed in a lengthy September 8, 1951 statement by Gromyko. The statement contained a number of Soviet Union's claims and assertions: that the treaty did not provide any guarantees against the rise of Japanese militarism; that Communist China was not invited to participate despite being one of the main victims of the Japanese aggression; that the Soviet Union was not properly consulted when the treaty was being prepared; that the treaty sets up Japan as an American military base and draws Japan into a military coalition directed against the Soviet Union; that the treaty was in effect a separate peace treaty; that the draft treaty violated the rights of China to Taiwan and several other islands; that several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States despite the U.S. not having any legitimate claim to them; that the draft treaty, in violation of the Yalta agreement, did not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands; and other objections.
On August 15, 1951 and September 18, 1951 the People's Republic of China published statements denouncing the treaty, stating that it was illegal and should not be recognized. Besides their general exclusion from the negotiation process, the PRC claimed that the Paracel-, Spratly- and Pratas Islands in the South Pacific were actually part of China. The treaty either did not address these islands, or in the case of the Pratas turned them over to the United Nations. A major player in providing support for a post-war free Japan was the delegation from Ceylon (Sri Lanka). While many were reluctant to allow a free Japan capable of aggressive action and insisted that the terms of surrender should be rigidly enforced in an attempt to break the spirit of the Japanese nation, the Ceylonese Finance Minister J.R. Jayawardene spoke in defence for a free Japan and informed the conference of Ceylon's refusal to accept the payment of reparations that would harm Japan's economy. His reason was "We in Ceylon were fortunate that we were not invaded, but the damage caused by air raids, by the stationing of enormous armies under the South-East Asia Command, and by the slaughter-tapping of one of our main commodities, rubber, when we were the only producer of natural rubber for the Allies, entitles us to ask that the damage so caused should be repaired. We do not intend to do so for we believe in the words of the Great Teacher [Buddha] whose message has ennobled the lives of countless millions in Asia, that 'hatred ceases not by hatred but by love'." He ended the same speech by saying "This treaty is as magnanimous as it is just to a defeated foe. We extend to Japan the hand of friendship and trust that with the closing of this chapter in the history of man, the last page of which we write today, and with the beginning of the new one, the first page of which we dictate tomorrow, her people and ours may march together to enjoy the full dignity of human life in peace and prosperity".
Minister Jayewardene's speech was received with resounding applause. Afterwards newspapers such as the New York Times stated "The voice of free Asia eloquent, melancholy and strong with the tilt of an Oxford accent dominated the Conference. The ablest Asian spokesman at the Conference was Ceylon's Finance Minister J. R. Jayewardene".
The conclusion is, that an abolition of the San Francisco treaty of 1951 would mean going back to the Boxer Protocol of 1901 reopening the negotiations of the status of Taiwan, Pescadores, Hong Kong, Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, Spratleys and who knows what.
May be Japan Times could predict that future and where it will take us.
By Gabor Fabricius
Comments [ 0 ]