WSJ should not serve as mouthpiece for Japan on Diaoyu Islands

Chinese marine surveillance ships have continued their regular patrols in the territorial waters surrounding the Diaoyu Islands on Feb. 15, 2013. The destination is the waters 3-nautical miles from the Diaoyu Islands. The 4-hour patrol was completed after the fleet sailed around Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets.(Xinhua/Zhang Jiansong)

The Japanese government seems to have stepped up a lobbying campaign around the world to create the illusion that the Chinese-owned Diaoyu Islands belong to Japan.

The Wall Street Journal, a mainstream U.S. newspaper, acted as a trumpet for the Japanese government, as it published an editorial Friday claiming that the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands has been settled by the Americans in favor of Japan in the early 1970s.

It even urged the Obama administration to be "more explicit" that the islands in the East China Sea are Japanese, so that Beijing is more likely to back down.

The editorial marks the first time for a major U.S. newspaper to publicly call on Washington to acknowledge that the Diaoyu Islands belong to Japan, since Tokyo's "nationalization" of the uninhabited islands from private hands in late 2012.

The WSJ, despite its reputed balanced news reporting, has regrettably taken an extreme stance in this editorial article.

It seems to have ignored repeated statements from the White House that the United States does not take a position on territorial disputes between China and Japan, in which America is not a directly concerned party and should remain neutral.

By siding with the Japanese, the paper has in fact fallen victim to Japan's international lobbying and served as a pawn in Tokyo's despicable scheme to usurp on the Diaoyu Islands, which have been proved the Chinese territory since ancient times.

Relevant international documents inked at the end of World War II have laid out in legal terms that the Diaoyu Islands should be returned to China. The U.S. unilateral transferring "power of administration" of the islets to Japan is utterly illegal and void.

Moreover, the journal writes in a voice quite similar to the Japanese government, which typically blames all tensions over the disputed islands on China while exculpating and even glorifying Japan's provocative actions.

In a latest move to justify his expansionist ambitions, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said in an interview with the WSJ late October that Japan should take a greater "leadership" role in security affairs in the Asia-Pacific to counter a stronger China.

Abe has intentionally depicted China as a looming threat, because he needs to envision an enemy to lobby the international community to build a full-fledged Japanese army, shake off constraints imposed by its pacifist constitution, and challenge the post-war international order.

Any responsible newspaper should take account of such ulterior motives, and refrain from serving as a mouthpiece for campaigns against peace.

Mainstream news outlets such as the WSJ should take the lead in showing its pursuit for fact and commitment to truth, and help defuse tension for a more peaceful world, rather than act the opposite.