Japan from the inside out

All you have to do is look (29)

Posted by ampontan on Sunday, August 26, 2012

Douglas MacArthur II, the nephew of the famous general, was the American ambassador to Japan from 1957 to 1961. On 27 April 1960 he sent a telegram to J. Graham Parsons, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, in Washington. It was later declassified. This is it.

Is the reason that South Korea refuses to have the claim to Takeshima settled by a neutral third party, such as the International Court of Justice, becoming clear?

14 Responses to “All you have to do is look (29)”

  1. Aceface said


  2. yankdownunder said

    Is the reason that South Korea refuses to have the claim to Takeshima settled by a neutral third party, such as the International Court of Justice, becoming clear?

    Yes. But US as ally and protector of Japan is not so clear.

  3. 21st Century Schizoid Man said

    Yankdownunder: I think US is not so clear simply because it is not. But this is not to blame nor claim something from US. US intends to continue as an ally and protector of east Asia as a whole because it relates to national interest and the national interest does not treat Japan as the sole subject of protection, which is quite understandable.

    A: If I were a Korean, in view of the current 実効支配, and on that alone, I would simply be against ICJ or any other “neutral” 3rd party settlement. With or without some knowledge of history (distorted or not).

    If I were a Chinese, in view of the current 実効支配 by Japan, I would simply have the claim to Senkakus settled by the ICJ. I wonder why they have not done this yet. And when they do, Japan should move for it just as Korea should move for it. I understand Japan has more than handful of evidence to prove Senkakus historically belongs to Japan.

    I have not fully explored this blog, but it appears that there is less article on 北方領土 than Takeshima and Senkakus. Care to explain the reason?
    2: From what I’ve been reading lately, some people in Japan are talking about bringing the Senkakus to the ICJ too. Might happen.

    As for the Northern Territories, here’s a long explanation in a longer article. that I did in February.

    Part of the problem is that the Americans decided to give them to Stalin in the San Francisco Treaty to keep Stalin from taking all of Hokkaido, making that claim more difficult, on the surface anyway.

    Both the Senkakus and Takeshima were recognized to be Japanese territory in that treaty. The Russians aren’t going to do anything more unless things get really bad, but the Chinese are trying to pry Okinawa loose and the Koreans are talking about the same with Tsushima.


  4. Aceface said

    Japan won’t take Senkaku to ICJ because their official position is it’s theirs.However Japan had made optional clause declarations to ICJ,Japan must be at ICJ if only China also made optional clause declarations and take the issue to ICJ.So the ball in in the China’s court.

  5. 21st Century Schizoid Man said

    Aceface: Care to explain the optional clause? I do know Korea won’t take Takeshima to ICJ because their official position is it’s theirs. So the difference may exist between Japan and Korea regarding that optional clause, and I am curious to know what it is. Presumably it is an optional clause regarding the treaty on which ICJ is based?

  6. 21st Century Schizoid Man said

    A: Thanks! I made a fool out of the blogger someone at Ichigen Koji, but probably you would appreciate that I appreciate your last statement about Okinawa and Tsushima. However, even though Japan should continue its effort to preserve and maintain its territory, such things are quite difficult to realize in short term.

    If we take a look at history and troubled areas all around the world, peace-mongers learn something. What I did not like about her statement was that she necessarily tie peace-mongers and anti-nuke-mongers. I do not think that is the way it is now.
    2: I think one of the things she might be talking about is stuff like this. They and similar groups have been showing up at the Tokyo demonstrations.

    Of course there are many people who aren’t associated with them who are serious people with serious concerns, but I didn’t know these guys were still around.

    She says she works for a major Western financial institution, so she probably looks at the power question from the business perspective.


  7. 21st Century Schizoid Man said

    A: Thanks! By all means, we follow what is happening and the best we can do is not to distract ourselves from the issues we face. Probably Japanese people’s anger and worries relate to their leaders’ distraction from the issues they face. Where fire and ammos are not actually flying, leaders can spare their time enough… no immediate and clear danger, to their criteria.

    Business perspective is important, otherwise Japan had not come this far. And Japanese business effort premises variety of efforts including mid to small business. Big one has just relied on that, to considerable extent, in return for earining money outside of the country. To think the big business achieved what it is now alone is ridiculous equally to the idea that the big business necessarily does evil. I call the idea unbalanced. May be they do not know the idea “integration” (that term may translate to governability of Japanese?). I should use the term “joint effort” or something.

  8. Aceface said

    ” Presumably it is an optional clause regarding the treaty on which ICJ is based?”

    Well if you make the declaration,you are obliged to be at ICJ when another member who have done the same wish to settle the case there.Japan had made the declaration.China,Russia,South and North Korea haven’t made declaration.Taiwan isn’t UN member and needs to be recognized by Security council to be in ICJ.and China,a permanent member at security council,would not allow Taipei to be in charge of territorial dispute because Beijing’s position is Taiwan is a province and not a state.China(and Russia)rather wants to settle the territorial dispute in bilateral relationship,because once they chose to settle the issue at ICJ,there would be dozens of cases made against Beijng and Moscow from their neighbors.

  9. 21st Century Schizoid Man said

    Ace: Thank you! So China would never do it.

  10. yankdownunder said

    Do you know where to get “original” of this telegram?

    I found it on this site.

    The content is true but it could be fake.

  11. nigelboy said

    “The content is true but it could be fake.”

    Don’t know if it’s credible but “Texas Daddy” テキサス親父, called NARA to verify the existence.

    In any case, I believe this exchange between who said what, when it was said, what did it mean by a third party (U.S. mostly at that time) has no merit to the actual legal standing of the case if it goes to ICJ. Koreans could very well argue that they favored Japan’s claims for political reasons and whatnot.

    Just stick with the 1905 incorporation and the follow up to exercize peaceful soverignty of the islets which it appears covers the basic principle set forth by other precedents in territorial dispute cases.

    But in any case, the MacArthur telegram does a good job in describing the Japan’s casualties when SK started to enforce the Rhee line.
    N:Thanks for the note. I also think the Treaty of San Francisco is important, too.


  12. Ken said

    This is same with the document though the speaker, Texas Daddy, seem to have confirmed the authenticity, isn’t it?

  13. ampontan said

    Ken: He seems to be confirming the authenticity. However, there’s a problem. Texas Daddy’s style will turn a lot of people off. People won’t listen to him no matter what he says. They’ll stop watching this video after only about 30 seconds or a minute.

    Using 敵刺 for Texas is not a good idea either.

  14. Ken said

    >They’ll stop watching this video after only about 30 seconds or a minute.

    Moderate or uninterested person would do so but enemies such as Koreans, SS, etc are stalking him more than expected.
    They always say, “This should be 100% left. It should be 100% left too. That should be also 100% left.”
    Japanese people would often say, “This should be 0% left. It could be 10% left. That might be 20% left,” with thinking, “All of them must be 0% left but we cannot step forward without compromising each other to 50% left.”
    However, the impression to neutral person is 55% left. Being concluded as such has been Japanese negotiation history.
    Therefore, the age seems to have called for that type of person for Japan. Like cures like. Poison quells poison.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: